"My Case for "Phase Based Combat"

G

GhostWhoTalks

First time out of the vault
I will freely admit up front that I grew up on Wasteland and thus there may exist some sort of nostalgic value for me, but with that said I put forward that there exist some very real, and substantial benefits for adoptings a "phase based combat" system.


Problems I see in the current system:

One: The Fallout NPC interface is awkward and doesn't accurately reflect true interaction. The NPCs are not automotons, and this is something I'm sure we can all agree we wish to avoid: NPCs as automotons.

Two: NPC interaction caused scenarios to occur which ranged from stupid (Sulik switching to a sledge hammer versus an Enclave soldier) to downright aggravating (Sulik going full-auto with his gun imbedded in my back side).

Now I am willing to grant that NPCs should have weapon preferences (sniper types should prefer the long rifle), but military characters who are aware that their preferred weapon will be ineffective should not switch to it. I would make allowances for civilian characters who might be scared, hurt, etc making stupid decisions, because that is understandable.

Areas of possible improvement:

Tactical Flexibility: And by this I don't mean different weapons and skills usable in combat. (more on this later)

Charisma's importance: Charisma had a sideline role in the previous Fallouts, and this is something which I think should be avoided.


My solution:

Start by removing that NPC interaction HUD. For simple things like armor and weapons the main character should have to provide a DAMN good reason why the NPC should NOT switch to the better armor or weapon. To bear this out to completion the PC should be able to tell the NPCs that we are going to be fighting certain monsters (robots) or going into a harmful area (radioactive) which require special considerations and the NPC can react accordingly. Characters will have set preferences according to how they act and what they wish to equip, but will take information gleaned from encounters and PC input into account.

During the "planning phase" the main character issues orders or commands to the NPCs. This accomplishes several things: It will remove the NPC as a kind of automoton, it will allow for greater tactical flexibility as you will be able to issue a range of commands to your NPCs, and it will make the NPCs seem more real as the possibility of disobeying an order will exist.

Whether or not an NPC will disobey an order will be based upon the character's leadership score (derived from the character's charisma), and thus charisma will now not only dictate how large your party can get, but also how effective you are as a leader. Certain other factors like whether or not the character is military or civilian, whether the order is morally objectionable, whether or not the order fits the characters combat preference, etc could all be secondary factors.

So when the "planning phase" starts the HUD will display and orders section and character action section. In the orders (or commands haven't decided which sounds better) section the option will exist to target which party member(s) you wish to address and which type of order to you wish to give. The two types of orders will be "Tactics" and "Formations."

"Tactics" will consist of individual strategies which you wish a given character to perform. This will include things like "Cover me," "Follow Me," "Fire at Will," and "Lay Down Suppressing Fire." These options are all self-explanatory (and, yes, suppressing fire would be a reality).

"Formations" will consist of how the characters wish to position themselves. This will include things like "Offensive," "Defensive," and "Ambush." "Offensive" would result in a staggered formation (so as to avoid shooting each other and prevent enemies from targetting more than one character with an attack) with military NPCs seeking out areas of tactical superiority like higher ground. "Defensive" would result in NPCs seeking effective cover with military NPCs positioning themselves so as to cover each other's flanks. "Ambush" would result in characters seeking positions to hide in with stealth trained characters seeking areas of color matching.

Characters will possess the ability to distribute their action points during the "planning phase," which will thusly determine what the characters do AND in what order. Mutually exclusive events due to characters attempting to engage in same action point cost maneuvers will have the outcome adjudicated by initiative, thus two characters moving into the same square will be avoided by having characters with higher initiative have their same action point cost actions performed slightly before other characters. A character could decide to use 2 action points to move out from cover, then use 3 action points to shoot, then use 2 more action points to return back behind cover. The amount of action points it takes to complete the action will determine how long it takes to accomplish said action either because its execution takes longer (i.e. first aid) or because one spends longer performing the action (i.e. full auto attacks). This will create the effect of allowing the player see their character moving in combat instead of having to imagine it as in a turn based combat.

Issues:

Battle could get boring with characters constantly moving in and out from cover to shoot.

Action points could get scarce by dividing them up between actions and movement.

Player will be unable to interrupt the "execution phase" of combat.


Addressing the Issues (in order listed above):

There will be two means of dealing with characters who try to use cover and and fire as their only means of attack. The first would be to designate one's action points into "waiting." Since one will be waiting for another person to act, this will grant a temporary initiative bonus when the character does perform their action. Thus a character could choose to wait 2 action points for someone to decide to pop out from behind cover only to hit them with a full auto. The temporary initiative bonus will help make sure the person waiting acts before the person they are waiting for.

The second option, which is much less ammo friendly, will be suppressive fire. The option will exist to shoot at a deisgnated character's position instead of at them, and thus a character could decide to spend 5 action points shooting full auto at a location whereupon if the opponent stands up or moves out from behind cover they will get hit if it occurs within that 5 action point time spread. The suppressive fire option serves several purposes. In addition to punishing opponents who choose cover which does not allow for lateral mobility it also serves to allow for characters who use short range attacks (melee people for instance) to get in close without getting shot as much and it makes weapons which have larger ammo capacity more desirable (thus miniguns with 200 ammo capacity will be much desired).


I am fairly sure action points would get too scarce by dividing them up, and thus I suggest the addition/creation of bonus movement points which can only be used on movement (not unlike what the bonus movement perk does). In order to make this most effective a standardized amount of base movement and action points would have to be decided upon, and then agility could provide a bonus to both action and movement points.


I do not consider the inability to interrupt the "execution phase" of combat to be a flaw in the system. Certain perks might grant characters the ability to perform interrupt maneuvers (like counter blows or side stepping attacks) during the execution phase (though I freely admit those would all be scripted events). But my main point is that the lack of interrupting the "execution phase" forces the player to be much more strategic in their decision making. The turn based player sees an ambush one at a time, and has time to react to his foes as they come up. This greatly diminishes the value of an ambush, and really strikes me as odd. I mean come on: *time out bad guys. I'm going to assign new actions now that I know you are ambushing me* doesn't strike me as a sound way of encouraging strategic play.

I think it is a good thing to reward good strategy and punish bad strategy. So when the characters charge the enemy position guns blazing the characters will likely get destroyed by an enemy ambush. Whereas the player who has a stealthy character scout out the enemy positions or (Even better) has a character infiltrate the enemy organization to learn the location of their guards is afforded a real strategic advantage over the player who did not engage in any information gathering techniques. I would like to see infiltration, espionage, and scouting afforded a greater role in the Fallout universe and this would be one way to do it.

I welcome critique.
 
I think these are great ideas, but there comes a point of micromanaging the combat phase of a game into ridiculousness. This was stuff needed for a good FOT game, but I think toned down version of these ideas should be ina FO CRPG.

With a system as rich as you are describing, the whole development of the *entire* game system may end up being all of the implementation time being spent of doing the uber-cool-realistic combat and less tiem fleshing out non-combat situations. (i.e. we don't want another Temple of Elemental Evil.. implements 3.5 rules set combat very very well... but everything else sucked, at least, that is what I heard)

Also when playing a good RPG game on some video gaming/computer system - i want a decent combat system, but I don't to have to spend twenty mintes thinking about all of my combat options to get thru a random encounter ;)
 
Interesting response.

From your response I assume you agree then that a "phase based combat" system could present an improvement over the current "turn based combat" system?

Additionally which ideas would you "tone down" and how?

And as a response to your last comment I don't think that "random encounters," which I will presume to be of low difficulty, would require much time since you could simply over power the opponent (and all that would entail is giving the "Fire at Will" command to your whole squad and watching them make mince meat out of your opponents.
 
Well, really, it's all dangerougly sounding like Fallout Tactics, which I guess would have been a really cool game if had just as great RPG elements and the correct Fallout feel. Unfortunately, Fallout Tactics bored the crap out of me in about 3 missions (and that is because it is foremost a combat game - and while combat is cool, I like solving puzzles and finding out gobs info and back story and dealing with moral dilemmas)
 
Right so we take what (little) elements we found to be better about Tactics and apply them (in the proper fallout context) to Fallout 3.

I would think we could borrow some of the tactical elements present in Tactics and apply them to Fallout 3 without sullying the name of Fallout 3.

I admit Tactics was horribly sucky when it came to trying to be an RPG. But I still found tactics enjoyable as a tactical battle simulation game. And I see no reason why Fallout 3 could not include certain elements present in Tactics which would not be out of place (like different stances, baseball bat, etc).

On the whole I get the impression that you feel the system I've outlined would be too comprehensive and would have to be trimmed down in order to make room for the "rest of the game." Now I am not opposed to ammending the ideas I've presented, but I would like to know which areas you consider to be too bulky or unwieldly, and therefore needing to be slimmed down.
 
While there are a few good ideas in there, the system is much too complicated for a role-playing game.

Simply put: this is great for the fan of tactical combat games, but they'd still be much better off with an actual tactical combat game.

For one, it is too detailed. Shouting a few orders at your teammates is a good idea, really, and that could be done during combat, but it should in no way be a required thing for a battle to go properly. I'd much rather have a good AI than the option to tell people what to do (and they see them ignoring my orders because of leadership). So I'd say that the focus should be on a better AI rather than more control.
This is, after all, about one man (or woman) in the wastes, not about a whole team as is the case in, say, Planescape: Torment and many other RPGs.

Secondly, I don't see why the execution phase needs to be uninterrupted. This makes the turn-based combat much more complicated to play, and tactics don't even need to change much.
Plus, it has the added complication of forcing the player character to decide what to do once his planned action cannot be performed anymore, for instance because the guy you wanted to shoot at again has just died from your first shot.
 
In a footnote, this has some resemblances to ideas that were to be applied to Van Buren, if I remember correctly. Not the complexeness of combat, which is simply unnecessary as combat is not and should not be the focal point of Fallout...

For that reason I am against phase based combat. Even worse than real time combat, it forces the player to concentrate very hard on combat and basically turns Fallout combat into a form of small-scale RTS, more like Fallout Tactics intended to.

Splitting up action points between a team is a ludicrous idea and clearly shows an intention of making it a team-based game, rather than me-against-the-world, like Fallout 1 and 2
 
Sander:

I agree with you that orders is no substitute for a good AI. I do not think that one should be required to use orders in order to defeat a battle. I think it should be an option for hard battles (especially ones which are important to the plot) to add another level of strategy. Perhaps as a battle option one could allow characters to "perform actions as you see fit."

I agree it is about one hero/heroin in the wastes, and not about the team, hence I was suggesting give the character a kind of primacy in combat by making them the leader of the party both in NPC relations and in combat.

"Phase based combat" pretty much requires an uninterrupted execution phase. And I was suggesting for reasons stated previously. Amongst these reasons are the prospects of ambush and the addition of strategic consequences for information avoidance.

Though I will grant you that the lack of ability to interrupt the execution phase would lead to the situation wherein the target of your previous action is dead. This would either lead to shooting someone after they are dead or the character doing nothing (which is largely unintelligible). Shooting a dead body after the target is dead is not realistic, since in a firefight communicating that someone is down or dead takes time. Now I will admit that shooting a dead body or swinging at someone who is going down is wasteful, but it is as I said not unrealistic.



Kharn:

I agree that the focal point of fallout should not be combat, but I don't think the above would make combat too complex. It would force you to think in depthly about combat for large scale or difficult battles, but I don't think that is a bad thing. Easy battles could easily be accomplished with just a fire at will type approach if the characters were sufficiently powerful. And if that proved to be a little too demanding I suspect the idea I proffered earlier about "letting the NPC do its own thing" would be the way to go.


I never said anything about a team sharing action points. I said characters "distribute their action points" NPCs have their own action points. I was suggesting the splitting up of action points as a way of making the transition between the planning phase and execution phase smoother. So the computer would know which actions you wished to perform first in other words.



I don't think adding another tactical dimension to Fallout combat would be in any way bad. Now if you all feel that the out-lined system is too complex what would you all suggest trimming down?
 
GhostWhoTalks said:
I don't think that "random encounters," which I will presume to be of low difficulty, would require much time since you could simply over power the opponent (and all that would entail is giving the "Fire at Will" command to your whole squad and watching them make mince meat out of your opponents.
Click to expand...

In PA world you can't just OVER POWER an enemy, you have to go to his level of power and use yours better, otherwise it is a waste of power(money,ammo+) , that you need to kill the really bad people.
I mean that you should be ably to say some thing like "rats" and sulik switch his Gatling Laser that he just used to get through the military base, to something like his super sledge to kill some geckoes. And on the other hand when he gets really hit hard, sulic says "no matter how many times you say *rats*, I always know that I am to be sent to a suicide mission, and are you blind, those are radscorpions not rats." :lol:
 
Ghost:
Fallout isn't about the team, full stop. Giving your teemmates orders might be interesting, but to split up the whole of combat just to be able to do that is overkill, and besides that, it also forces the player to spend a lot more time on combat.
And no, that isn't a good thing. Hey, you may like it, but it was never what Fallout was about, and when you complicate combat like this, you do put the focus on combat because you force everyone, including the people who never played Fallout for the combat (most of them) to spend a lot more time on combat.
And why? Because you would like it to be more like a tactical shooter.
Well, it isn't, it's a role-playing game.

And whether or not it might be realistic to shoot at a dead body, it's aggravating, and a game should never put realism over fun.

I don't think adding another tactical dimension to Fallout combat would be in any way bad. Now if you all feel that the out-lined system is too complex what would you all suggest trimming down?
Click to expand...
How about practically everything? I don't disdagree with the ability to give orders, but completely revamping combat is overkill at best.
 
I think giving orders makes more sense inside of a phase based system, since in a turn-based system orders might become invalidated by circumstances occurring on previous turns if the character to whom the order was addressed did not sequence in time.

Now if you can come up with a way of reconciling orders with a more turn-based approach to combat, then I am all ears.


Honestly, I didn't play F1 and F2 for the combat (that's why I played Tactics); I played the traditional Fallouts for the humor. So I sympathize with the argument that a combat system which took up too much game time would hurt the overall appeal of the game, but I don't think this would make combat so burdensome that it would prevent people from enjoying the game. I can see why certain combats would be made longer, but if you were willing to soak up a little damage, then combats would probably be no more time consuming than under a turn-based system. However, to those people interested in reducing damage or exploring alternative approaches to a situation (ambush for instance), then the possibility exists.


If by tactical shooter you mean something like "Tom Clancy's..." or "Battlefield 1942" then I am most certainly 100% against it. I will say that I wouldn't mind if certain elements of a game like Rise of Nations or Civilizations made it into Fallout. I don't think strategic resource management is outside the purview of a post apocalyptic role playing game. And I also don't think that being able to use your fire power in more creative or effective ways in combat is outside the purview of a PA RPG either.


I'm not sure how aggravating I would find shooting at "nothing" to be, but I can see why some might feel that way. Perhaps adding something like an option for a character whose target is deceased or otherwise invalid at the time possess the option to switch actions at penalty (maybe AP or success rate decrease). This would entail an interrupt of the execution phase, and it would be a special exception to the rule.


Alright, point taken, but then I will start up another thread hoping to address some of the concerns I was hoping to address.
 
Orders in combat should be very simple,

Take cover,
Cease Fire,
Retreat,
Attack my target,
Heal me.

You could bind them to hot keys and have each order cost 2 aps (for example). They wouldn't need to be addressed to any specific npc, but even if you had another set of keys to select party members sequence wouldn't really come into play if you could only give orders on your characters turn (hence the ap cost).
 
I second requiem's list.

Having lots of commands and settings for every NPC that happens to follow you around only shows lack of better ways to keep NPCs from behaving stupid, and that only really shows failure among the designers and programmers (or whoever came up with the idea of using RTS-"borrowed" methods for a totally different genre).

Why do you want to be able to tell NPCs what they are facing? They should see it if they keep up with you anyway. They should be able to figure out what weapon works best on their own. Depending on their personality they should take chances or try to play it safe.

Even things like "Retreat!" should be mostly unneccessary (unless you want your guys to run away while you are giving them supporting fire) -- if you retreat to the exit grid, they should consider following you; if they are facing a stronger opponent, they should try to find cover before attacking; if they are wounded, they should get down and heal up; if they are being overrun, they should run away. That kind of stuff is what makes them believable characters.

So what if it means your NPCs are acting on their own? They should be. And I'm not talking about mindless Sulik-like rushs with sledgehammers against gattling lasers -- I'm talking about intelligent behaviour and that includes being aware of what the rest of the guys you're with are doing. It's not so difficult to do -- hostile NPCs should already be less or more capable of acting in a way that doesn't make you want to cry out of sheer pity for their stupidity.

Not only should the player not be able to play his companions, he shouldn't HAVE to.

On a totally unrelated note: there should be a way to simply stomp and crush oponents much smaller than you. It's ridiculous that you need to spend three turns kicking a rat about the size of your foot if you could just as well try to jump on its head to kill it.
 
yea... i always find it frustrating when i see npcs use full burst mode on rats :(

very wasteful.
 
Ashmo said:
Even things like "Retreat!" should be mostly unneccessary (unless you want your guys to run away while you are giving them supporting fire) -- if you retreat to the exit grid, they should consider following you; if they are facing a stronger opponent, they should try to find cover before attacking; if they are wounded, they should get down and heal up; if they are being overrun, they should run away. That kind of stuff is what makes them believable characters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps instead of Retreat, Follow Me. Then that could be used for retreating or charging.

Though retreat would still be useful if the area is laid out so that the npcs can hear you but might not be able to see you leaving (actually if your followers can't see you leaving a map perhaps they shouldn't automatically leave with you?) and also if a character is a hothead, or a beserker nature they might not want to/ be able to break off just because you're running away.

Take cover should be something that the AI decides for itself, but the command would be useful if you are about to launch a particularly devistating attack on your next turn or can see an enemy the others can't.
 
I disagree that this system would by nature be too complicated.

Additional options available in a system DOES NOT mean that one has to utilize those additional options. Having more options may make the learning curve steeper for users who wish to utilize advanced options (which I don't consider a flaw, for those people who wish to master combat, then it should present some challenge), but for those people who wish combat to remain simple that too is an option. (Edit): I also suspect that combat would go more quickly for easier encounters since it would remove the necessity of clicking end turn so many times and it would combine all the time spent by individual characters into one time frame.


Just because one would possess the capability to issue orders to individual characters, does not mean one has to make use of that option. You could just as easily select your entire party for one command if that was your will. And it seems that the people here agree that giving general orders would be a good thing.


But for those of us who might wish to give individual orders that pretty much precludes the possibility of turn based combat. In turn based combat giving an individual an order is interferred with by the sequencing system. Individual orders would be most useful in taking out lynch-pins in the opposing party, and thus making sure that they are no longer a threat for the rest of combat.


Upon reflection I have also come to disagree that a "wasted action" would make the game any less fun. Certainly inside the turn based combat paradigm a wasted action would greatly detract from the fun of the game. But under the phase based combat paradigm you would most likely have to check the outcomes for damage because otherwise you probably wouldn't notice as the action would be close to real time during the execution phase (I would like to stress close as having laser fire occur at light speed would probably make laser fire less fun, etc).


I would also like to contend that "good AI" will not be able to cover instances under which giving individual orders might be a good idea. Civilian type NPCs which you bring into your group (and I see no reason why diplomat, scientist, or mechanic type characters couldn't get included in one's party) should by definition (assuming their AI is "good") NOT be good at combat. And military characters who do not possess great intelligence might not be aware of whatever the main character's strategy is in a given combat. There are numerous reasons why one should have to give individual orders in a combat even with good AI.


Jarno: Not quite true. A character in power armor armed with brass knuckles is going to crush rats without possibility of losing. So there is definitely such a thing as being able to overpower your opponent. Perhaps another example is switching to a less powerful gun for which you have an abundant supply of ammo.


(Edit): A phase-based approach would still allow for players who like turn-based because it gives them time to think to prosper but players who want a more action packed combat would have their "real time" execution phase to watch the "pretty colors." The impression I gather from negative response is that this is more of a knee-jerk reaction in the negative against anything that isn't turn-based.


(Further Edit): The basis of combat systems in games is an asymmetrical risk reward system. But this never precludes someone from always choosing an inferior option in any given circumstance. A good RPG game will never make it so any option is so inferior as to be totally unusable in a given circumstance, though this does not preclude extremes of difficulty. So while ordering a character to fight while you retreat might be the strategically superior option to having both of you fight, no one is required to do so in game. Advanced combat tactics should NEVER be required in order to complete the game. But I do not think that is sound reason to disallow players who wish to make use of such from ever doing so.
 
GhostWhoTalks said:
But for those of us who might wish to give individual orders that pretty much precludes the possibility of turn based combat. In turn based combat giving an individual an order is interferred with by the sequencing system. Individual orders would be most useful in taking out lynch-pins in the opposing party, and thus making sure that they are no longer a threat for the rest of combat.
Click to expand...
Sequence tends to be set once the first set of turns have been taken, it only really changes if someone's stats change or of course as people get killed or knocked out. You can have individual orders in turn based, using the character giving orders as the start of the cycle then if instead of doing something they spend their points giving orders instead, then the followers would attempt those orders until it comes around to the start of the cycle again. If you did order them to attack someone and that guy got killed early making your orders invalid, so what? How is that different from in phased based giving an order to take out the guy with the rocket launcher only form him to blow himself up in the same turn, leaving your followers with nothing to do?

GhostWhoTalks said:
Advanced combat tactics should NEVER be required in order to complete the game. But I do not think that is sound reason to disallow players who wish to make use of such from ever doing so.
Click to expand...
Other than the fact it's meant to be an RPG, and if people want advanced combat tactics they should play a tactical combat game instead. No game can be everything to everyone, improvements to an established system can be good (assuming they actually improve) additions likewise can be nice, but to totally replace an established system for one more aimed at people interested more in a different milieu?

For me the TB system is part and parcel of the Fallout experience, change it too much and it's not the Fallout experience anymore.
 
GhostWhoTalks said:
Jarno: Not quite true. A character in power armor armed with brass knuckles is going to crush rats without possibility of losing. So there is definitely such a thing as being able to overpower your opponent. Perhaps another example is switching to a less powerful gun for which you have an abundant supply of ammo.
Click to expand...
That is just what I meant, I never played a charismatic char, cause I knew already that I would just be losing ammo, cause I couldn't give orders. And I never liked the FT:BoS style of continuous turn based combat, cause I got never to use all my AP, for exp, char whit 10 AG, fast shot trade and bonus rate of fire, couldn't use all, cause the gun animations were too SLOW :badmood:
 
Jarno Mikkola said:
That is just what I meant, I never played a charismatic char, cause I knew already that I would just be losing ammo, cause I couldn't give orders. And I never liked the FT:BoS style of continuous turn based combat, cause I got never to use all my AP, for exp, char whit 10 AG, fast shot trade and bonus rate of fire, couldn't use all, cause the gun animations were too SLOW :badmood:
Click to expand...
Which game are you talking about here, because in the RPG the charismatic character has so many other options that it doesn't matter that they waste ammo in combat. Besides sometimes it's better to waste a shot of expensive ammo if it takes out your opponent in one go rather than switching to their level of weapons technology, the longer the fight keeps going the more chance they have of scoring a critical hit.

As for CTB, why would you want to use that bastardization in the first place? TB is the only true Fallout.

But the animations were okay, the animations seem to line up with the ap regeneration rate fairly well, though I haven't played the multiplayer where you can change the regeneration rate.
 
:roll: I mean in FT:BoS the animations didn't let me to shoot my gun(pistol that has 1ap to shoot) the 10 times(whit allmods) that I should be able to before the enemy give his 4th(6ap per) burst to my face :x which is more than two turns in my calculations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top