RPG Combat...uh...huh?

Reading on the Planescape thread, I'm surprised that Silent Storm doesn't come up every time rpg combat is discussed.

It, on EVERY level, elevates turn-based combat on both a visceral and dynamic level, while offering vastly superior 'tactical' combat to Fallout's 'hide behind wall, step out and fire, hide behind wall'. Fallout had nearly zero tactics, since you cannot control your party. No stances. Facing is irrelevent. Flanking impossible ( again no npc control ).

Not to disparage Fallout itself, of course, but to say it had great combat is stretching it.

I asked this question on DaC a while ago, so with all that said, do you guys WANT greater control and tactics in rpg combat(silent storm), or are you happy merely with battles of attrition and 'who has more stimpaks'(Fallout)?

Cheers

Problem with NPC control is that you get this thing that can handle any encounter in every way provided. You can have a few specialize in combat, one in dialog, another in stealth and stuff like that and bam you can do anything you want, any way. It destroys roleplaying, it ends up going the path that yields the most experience. Fallout was all about playing different characters differently, being able to finish the game regardless of how backwards your character is. And certain characters were limited to doing certain things, which made you consider carefully how you'll develop your character. I could spend hours just playing around with the statistics on character gen in Fallout.

Now Fallout's combat was not very good at all. However it's not like one character combat can't be fun. There was just not much you could do in Fallout. Most weapons had two ways of attacking, and you could shoot for various body parts (which was almost always the way to go), and hide behind walls. Implementing more abilities would've been very nice. Also, giving very basic instructions to party members on your turn. Like attacking a certain monster, walking to a certain spot, etc. I think it'd be fair if it costs a small amount of AP.

Stimpaks actually should've used 2 AP every time you used them, even through inventory. It would've made Super Stimpaks more worthwhile and would've had less reliance on "Welp, a bit low on health, time to heal" *uses 20 Stimpaks*, *goes back to firing weapon*.

I haven't played Silent Storm, so can't comment on that. You do have a point that tactics in Fallout were limited to weapon choice, choice of shot (one aimed vs 2 unaimed) and whether to run away or not. Truth be told, you don't really stand out in the open shooting at some other guy anyway, you duck out from behind something and duck back down, so I don't see that as a weakness (especially when the bad guys ran up to you).

Things like X-Coms "shots of opportunity" might be an idea. You save some of your AP in case someone walks into your line of sight during their turn, then if your agility is high enough / reaction roll is successful, you take a shot.

Well, the cool part about Silent Storm that helps defeat that 'tactic' in Fallout, are interruptions, which allow the interrupter to get a chance to do something during the interruptee's turn, so to use the Fallout example, if I were to try the pop out-shoot-pop in gameplay, the enemy would have an opportunity to interrupt me the moment I come into view(granted he passes a reaction check), and get a shot off. Keep in mind that interruptions require AP, so, if said enemy managed to essentially wait, skip his turn, he would have his full AP to utilize during that interruption, which could easily devastate me, nullifying that 'FO techinique' altogether. Very similar to the combat in Shadowrun, where a fast (high initiative) character could delay his turn to see what the enemy does before taking his turn. This makes TB combat more unpredictable (read: tense) and honestly very fun. I just did not like ToEE despite its depth, but Silent Storm is just hard to get tired of.

Nothing beats having a submachine gunner guarding the rear of a couple of riflemen, as a nazi tries to sneak up from behind, and having said SMG'er get the interruption and lay waste, point blank, on full auto. Glorious.


EDIT: Ugh, you essentially just said this in your last sentence that I seemed to have missed.

Hehe

I like combat

Its silly to make straight comparisons between the combat of JA2 or Silent Storm and Fallout. The extra tactical options work in those games (you play military professionals fighting other military professionals, after all,) but I don't think they make nearly as much sense in a frontier wasteland world. Fallout provides a decent analogue of unskilled combat - no one's making tactical decisions to flank or provide open lines of fire, most combatants just stand around trying to be the guy that makes the other guys head splatter. Battle tactics are learned, imagine the quality and depth of your own tactics had you not seen the movies or played the games you have. There isn't a lot of strategy in Buck Rogers comics.

Fallout is also a single PC game, so most of the tactics you'd employ in the field, other than changes of stance (big deal,) are useless. I would like to be able to trap doors and strong boxes with explosives and lay mines though.

Erm, not really comparing...I'm 'asking'. All of you talk about TB this and TB that, and then hold Fallout up as a shining example of TB combat, despite being rather pedestrian. Silent Storm isn't that difficult for newcomers unless you play it on a higher difficulty of course, but offers a far deeper, thus, far more satisfying TB experience (arguing that TB should offer tactical gameplay).

Fine.

A lot of people were excited about ToEE, which has a rather deep TB in of itself, despite being rather tedious (IMHO).

What I'm asking is to what level do you like your TB? I mean hell, you all want TB, yet if its limited to Fallout, there's nothing there, just taking turns to 'beat on you, beat on me'.

Consider all this just me being confused. I read all these convos comparing combat or talking about phase vs. turn vs. realtime...everyone goes back to Fallout, and all cry "gimmie turn-base!", yet do you WANT depth? Or merely an "action game" where instead of thumbing buttons, you're just taking turns shooting/healing? I know what I like, but the more I read, the more I get the feeling everyone simply wants FO 1 over and over and over again. Not even gamers or RPG fans, just fans of Fallout, which happens to be an RPG.

Cheers

What I'm asking is to what level do you like your TB?

Click to expand...

Maybe this is too general? People keep saying that they expect different levels of detail from different kinds of games after all, and Fallout and SS would appear to on opposite sides when it comes to what exactly you need to be able to do in combat in order for the game to be fun...

I'd just like to see some more options, personally. It doesn't have to be SS level because the game isn't a tactical combat game.

I'm not a regular here, just cruising thru after midnite, but i am a turn-based fanboi and i am all for depth. As i see it, FO was RPG depth-story and dialogue and combat combined into the whole, not just TB combat glorified.

Turn based combat allows for choice and strategy, whereas real time is too often a gloss-over of reactions and mad clicking, swerving and( for me, )dying stupidly or killing stupidly with monotonous regularity.

TOEE combat was addictive,had a good mix of strategy and options, but simplistic and repetitive battles and no surprizes. It was rolling up your party and forming each member that kept you playing thru the bugfest.

I haven't played Silent Storm, but i assume a squad and a party have certain things in common. The level you ask about is there, i think, in that multi-character magnification of each combat situation--not one attack/defend choice, but five...a layering of choices that forces you to think optimally to survive.

EvoG said:

What I'm asking is to what level do you like your TB? I mean hell, you all want TB, yet if its limited to Fallout, there's nothing there, just taking turns to 'beat on you, beat on me'.

Click to expand...

The reason we want TB is not "hey TB, that's great!" but we want the character to be successful in combat because of his own abilities, and not successful because the player has quick reflexes and again if you make the TB combat too complex there's a point where, once again, it comes down to player skill and experiance.

Fallout's TB emulated this well enough, provided a means of making combat dependant on the characters skill while not giving enough options to create "player interferance". The games with deeper (or shallower) combat will appeal to those that enjoy that type of combat and in the end RPG's arn't even about combat.

So this makes it no different than say a turn-based Dungeon Siege? I mean hell, you don't have to do anything there but click once and let them at it, no player skill needed.

So if it isn't the players dexterity, and it isn't the players intelligence, what exactly is the player bringing to the table?? I'm being serious. I hear comlpaints that such and such game requires some shooting ability, and that a lot of you aren't good at action games, so fine, you play more 'thinking' games, and boy we've heard that thrown around a LOT. Gamers who like FPS are generally in it for the mindless action that require little thought, and RPG'ers generally like more cerebral challenges. But now I'm hearing that requiring some mental 'dexterity' isn't the way to go either now, because thats too much the players skill and not 100% the characters. Hmmm.

This gets more intriguing every day. Oh, and I DO understand exactly what you're saying, I'm just baffled considering that TB is tossed around like its the creamy sex0rz of RPG's, yet just not "too much TB".

Is Silent Storm too much TB? Fallout is far too little so is there a middle ground? (of course there IS, but rather we discuss it than assume).

BTW --> This isn't to disparage anyone, but rather me coming to grips with what it is exactly that you all scream for. This is the sole reason I brought up Silent Storm, since again, its got spectacular, and amazingly fun TB, WITH some RPG elements, and I've heard in the past that Fallout with the S2 engine would 'pWn', so...but I never read about Silent Storms TB here in any threads.

It seems there's more to TB than "to TB or NOT to TB...that is the thingy!"


Cheers


ADD: and I agree that RPG's are not JUST about combat...but considering that that seems to be the single most significant fundamental for 'conflict' and the element that separates RPG's from graphic adventures ( and of course character growth ), its rather important...or else there wouldn't be all the TB vs. RT convos, ad infinitum.

Is this AxelGreese btw?

Player interferance? That sounds...odd. Why isn't it player interferance to engage in resource management, explore, pick dialoge options etc.?

It's not an idea I'm really familiar with when talking about RPGs...

Excellent thread EvoG

Silent Storm has the kind of combat that I'd love to see coupled with Fallout's atmosphere.

The thing that I'm not sure about is how NPC followers would be implemented into a Silent Storm TB engine. It seems to me that when NPC followers are involved, the combat has to lose some awesomeness. As dreamy as it is, I'm just not sure how tough it is to put something like that together.

It seems like the AI would have to be super uber for that, although I think it would add lots of personality to NPC followers.

If we're going to rip on Fallout we may as well do the same with Silent Storm. It wasn't that hard to make some noise, set up an ambush, wipe your arse with the advance squad, then crawl along to next sortie. All it takes is patience. The increased tactical options in S2 allows you to cheese the game in ways that weren't possible in Fallout. Does that make it inferior to Fallout's stand-off slug 'em gameplay? Not at all.

Which gets us to :

So if it isn't the players dexterity, and it isn't the players intelligence, what exactly is the player bringing to the table??

Click to expand...

Ego. Whether the controll provided by a turn-based system is actually real or illusionary is inconsequential. I feel like I'm in controll at all times, any choice made is my own responsibility. More importantly I dont feel like I'm being cheated out of something like I do with Dungeon Siege.

The problem with interrupts in Fallout is Fallout allows for melee to be equivalent with ranged weapons. If you had melee and hand to hand require things like sneaking, that just means you'd have to dump twice as many skill points in to two skills as the gun person needs for just one skill. Having to sneak just to be effective as the ranged player isn't kosher, so you really can't do things like offensive offsets during turns, which are what interrupts are. Instead, Fallout opted to have defensive offsets, where unused AP boosted armor class.

Fallout Tactics, on the other hand, had overwatch, which is an interrupt. And, unlike Silent Storm, interrupts were FREE. If you had the AP, you could overwatch every time.

No one seems to be addressing what I'm asking, just defending Fallout.

Where do you draw the line for TB? I'm getting the feeling that you don't want anything more than a PC that stands there and unloads and um, unloads....oh and heals now and then.

A lot of you seemed to really like ToEE, yet that was leagues deeper than Fallout (NO EEVIAC I'M NOT INTENTIONALLY RIPPING INTO FALLOUT).

As of recent convos, you all burn KotoR at the gates, but in reality, when it comes down to brass tacks, the only difference between KotoR's phase-combat and Fallouts TB-combat is that :

A) Fallout has action points, KotoR doesn't

B) Fallout has movement, KotoR Breaks combat when you move

C) Combat happens simultaneously in KotoR

Now to set this straight and avoid tit for tat, I of course know and see the difference between to two and this is not a Fallout vs. KotoR convo or even my personal preference (remember I'm the Silent Storm guy?), but the differences aren't THAT drastic, as EEVIAC has pointed out, you're bringing your ego. Otherwise, you stand there and bash away in both games, heal when necessary, and neither require significant player skill. *shrugs*

Saint, if you're trying to fit square pegs into round holes, yes of course, lots of things can't be implemented into Fallout, so of course your arguments will be vaild...this is NOT what I'm talking about. Fallout is Fallout and thats it, non-issue. I don't care that melee doesn't work with interrupts, fine. I'm not looking to fix/change Fallout. We're talking about new games and new designs, where ANY CONCEPT can be retooled, retrofitted, reimagined or rebuiltified . Its to WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL do you enjoy turn-based combat in RPG's.

I can easily see sides emerging here.

TB Tactical vs. TB Lite.

Soon we'll see the Tactical guys bashing on the Lite guys like the good ole days of RT vs. TB...oh wait, thats still going on...NEVERMIND! :D


Cheers

merry andrew said:

Excellent thread EvoG

Silent Storm has the kind of combat that I'd love to see coupled with Fallout's atmosphere.

The thing that I'm not sure about is how NPC followers would be implemented into a Silent Storm TB engine. It seems to me that when NPC followers are involved, the combat has to lose some awesomeness. As dreamy as it is, I'm just not sure how tough it is to put something like that together.

It seems like the AI would have to be super uber for that, although I think it would add lots of personality to NPC followers.

Click to expand...

Good question. I have my thoughts about leadership skills and issuing commands rather than directly choosing the NPC's fate, but there appears to be little difference between the two. In order to make leadership effective, the npc essentially has to do as you say, but if he does essentially what you say, arent' you directly controling him?

Having direct control over every character did allow for absolute surgical tactics, which yes, made its level awesomitude, awesome, and yea, this could be lost with computer controlled characters. That feeling of not knowing your men are doing what you need them to do, worrying the computer is going to fubar them and the battle.

Either way, I have a lot of material on concepts for NPC behaviour in combat with leadership so 'we'll see' is all I have right now.


Cheers

EvoG said:

Either way, I have a lot of material on concepts for NPC behaviour in combat with leadership so 'we'll see' is all I have right now.

Click to expand...

Possibly borrow some stuff from Tactical wargames like Combat Mission or Close Combat - you can command the NPC's as to the broad direction you want them to take (eg go up that side alley, and try and flank the enemy), but actual implementation of the orders is then up to the AI to the best of that NPC's abilities & stats. As you gain more "leadership" skill you can issue more complicated commands, that the NPCs are more likley to follow. I've never played it, but Full Spectrum Warrior might also be a good example here. (And more likely to hit a publishers "buzz word" button)


But... that is off topic.. EvoG is asking do we want TB lite ala Fallout or TB tactics ala X-COM / JA2 / Silent Storm.

Well my vote would be for TB tactics for sure - but what sort of game are you making then? A large combat in X-Com or Silent Storm can require easily a good half hour or more of play time to resolve. Would Fallout (or your upcoming title) have been such a good RPG if the combat took half an hour or more to resolve? Personally I dont think so. The combat would have been the dominant feature. If you make a TB tactics game, are you making an RPG anymore? Asides from JA2, I cant think of a RPG that featured such detailed tactical combat? And even JA2 is not much of a RPG. Personally I think you can only have the combat require 10 - 15 mins of play time at most if you dont want the game to be entirely about combat.

TB Tactics would almost certainly require you to have FULL control of NPC's as well - which means you lose an opportunity to give the NPC's character.

I also dont think a good TB tactics engine is enough to make a great game. Silent Storm has a more than good TB engine, but it lacked longevity for me. The 15th play through of Combat, is much the same as the 20th. There is no outisde "wrapper" around the combat to maintain interest, like JA2. For that reason, JA2 is still to my mind the superior game.

So - I think that whilst we may express a preference for deep complicated TB combat, perhaps TB lite is better for an RPG? Or else combat becomes the dominant feature of the Game?

But then again - JA2 is the perfect example again - where a strong TB tactical game becomes much stronger overall game, due to the wrapper around it. (much like X-COM). Perhaps if the wrapper was more RPG flavoured than the strategic wrapper around JA2 and X-COM, we would have a fantastic game.

hmmm so Bascially I am saying I cant decide ;-) Either way could be good. Fallout and PS:T (and for some, even KOTOR) prove you can have Tactics Lite combat, and really focus on the RPG elements, and have a great game. Yet JA2 and XCOM prove you can have TB tactics, make the combat the dominant feature, and basically the wrapper is an extended preperation for the next combat, and still have a great game.

One thing is for sure - ToEE proves you can have a TB Tactical combat game, and have it end up mediocore, becuase the rest of the wrapper around the combat is not good enough. Silent Storm falls close to this as well in my opinion, but the sheer quality of the combat elevates it from mediocore to good. (But not oustanding like JA2, XCOM or Fallout)

A well done RPG with a Silent Storm level of TB Tactics combat could certainly be a real genre busting game that sells really well anyway ;-)

Excellent post Talorc.

Personally I want Silent Storm combat in a post apoc. RPG. Thinking on this, seeing Silent Storm and looking at what I 'wanted' to put in while considering what fans see in Fallout, mine was potentially more complex than S2.

I love combat but at the same time, I dread long drawn out battles when I may be eager to see what happens next in the story. S2's battle could've been faster, but hell if I know what was taking the AI so long to move. NWN and KotoR had satisfying battles due to their speed, and didn't require player dexterity.

I'll tell ya this...if all I had to do or wanted to do was Fallout level combat, it would sure as hell make my job INFINITELY easier than working out a tactical combat system.


Cheers

Was thinking, about computer controlled followers in tb,
would it actually be hard to implement a lead by example approach? let's say: ranged combat situation, your characters gives a flanking order to one of the npc so that he can get a better shot at the bad guys. the npc does not want to detour alone (there could baddies not visible around) and it answer piss off. you character starts doing a flanking movement, and tells the npc to follow and this order is followed. the rate of success of the giving order may depend onleadership charisma etc., and the traits of the npc. and consequence could implemented if the orders are crappy. send somebody to his death and to heavy wounding and the next time the npc will ignore you.
apart from this I am in almost complete agreement with talorc comments. In a RPG tb combat would have to be fast, would say that good example are the avernum games: plenty of combat but solved fast. with a bit more tactical options I think is an almost perfect system.
Cannot comment about fallout, did not play it (uh oh, will I run into trouble?), in general I like action point because I feel I am more free(tactically) in how to spend my turn. This is maybe more important in ranged tb combat. But all in all a deep tb rpg, with combat that does not drag too long would be close to my dream game. And it needs interrupts!
nice thread by the way

For me the only reason to have turnbased would be to offer some kind of control over the party members. Perhaps by giving them waypoints and then rely on their standing orders if they spot new enemies.

Hopefully the game would be able to tell the NPCs which enemies are need to be attacked in self defence, even before those new enemies attack. It would be kind of bad to send an NPC party member off on a flanking maneuver right before an enemy charges the PC and ends up (for the first time) in the flanking party members line of sight, and that party member decides to treat that enemy the same way as an enemy encountered during the flanking maneuver. Just checking if that enemy has been seen by any other party member might not be enough, because it could have been seen by the party right before it took off on its own flanking maneuver, and must therefore be attacked. Perhaps the intended (or will be intended) target of the enemy as well as the proximity to other party members within line of sight to the enemy could serve to distinguish targets that should be left to others and targets that should be engaged.

It would be pretty cool if the player could only see enemies and party members within line of sight, and whenever a party member goes out of view, the party portrait would become greyed out. After hearing a few gunshots from behind that building which the party member was sent off to, the player would have to hope that the party member survived whatever happened. Bloodcurdling death screams would be appropriate too. :twisted:

EDIT: On second thought, perhaps having a full blown tactical TB system would be bad, since it might require people to enjoy both tactical combat and many roleplaying elements. People who only want one of the two might be annoyed at having the game filled with too much dead weight. But then again, if the game allows people to avoid combat, then it shouldn't matter as much.

RGE kinda hit it on the head...if you want to avoid combat, then its a non-issue...but those of us that enjoy fighting, it should be rewarding and deep.

Looks like this is to be filed under, "you can't please everyone".

But really, you guys should get your TB's straight when arguing systems...its obvious that all TB isn't created equal.

Cheers

I'd like to see a Fallout game with the combat-system from JA2 or SS2, with all that zany tactical stuff.
Two games for the price of one.

Yea me too. Don't worry though, its all good. Everyone will like what we're doing.

I'm a big fan of scalable difficulty and customizable gameplay.


Cheers

EvoG said:

its obvious that all TB isn't created equal.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

And for the turn-based vs pause&play debate, you bring the much needed observation that those two systems have more in common than either one alone compared to JA2 or Silent Storm.