Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

Sowelu, that's why I like tactics games with AI for your own units. Off hand I can only think of FFT, where it was absolutely useless, but if you could bring in 30 units and delegate 20-25 to the AI, focus on using your favorite few... now that would be fun!

Then command the AI a bit. Strike here! Follow these guys. Don't die!

Hey, if you combine that with Inalucts idea... You could for instance have the "hero" characters like knights or something that all can have their own squads to command. So you could have like 5 guys controled directly, and 30-40 guys under them acting on their own.

Hmmm.  Sounds like that's moving into RTT territory.  Turn-based tactics tend to be annoying when very long distances come into play, especially when you're using melee--that's why console tactics games have small maps, for one thing.  And I know I don't like spending four turns moving my X-Com guys into siege position around a UFO's door.  Multiple squads mean big maps, and AI means watching the computer fight itself, which is better in real-time than it is watching one unit move at a time for the entire 30-unit AI force versus a comparable enemy force each time you're done with your turn.

Also, turn-based tactics almost invariably means grid-based, and AI is often not too great with positioning your guys on a grid.  Maybe better AI can help that, but I just can't imagine Close Combat working on a grid, for example...  Besides, if you want anything like realistic melee combat, you start needing to throw grid-based away too.

I mean, I won't lie, it DOES sound like a lot of fun.  But not real-time or grid-based, to me.

[Goron]

Ahh, thought of another great tactics game:
Close Combat (series)

[Keiseth]

Hey, if you combine that with Inalucts idea... You could for instance have the "hero" characters like knights or something that all can have their own squads to command. So you could have like 5 guys controled directly, and 30-40 guys under them acting on their own.

That sounds pretty effective! The developers would just have to make sure the followers have some decent AI, but any game would benefit from better AI.

Hmmm.  Sounds like that's moving into RTT territory.  Turn-based tactics tend to be annoying when very long distances come into play, especially when you're using melee--that's why console tactics games have small maps, for one thing. 

I have that issue with Roguelikes sometimes, too. Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm and... shoot, what else... a few games have a hybrid RTT / TBT system where you can walk freely (and quickly!) when there are no enemies in sight. That'd be a start.

Fualkner and I have that plan in mind for a Roguelike, where you can engage a real-time processing mode and either walk or wait with things looking much more lively.

[Zangi]

Sowelu, that's why I like tactics games with AI for your own units. Off hand I can only think of FFT, where it was absolutely useless, but if you could bring in 30 units and delegate 20-25 to the AI, focus on using your favorite few... now that would be fun!

Then command the AI a bit. Strike here! Follow these guys. Don't die!

Hey, if you combine that with Inalucts idea... You could for instance have the "hero" characters like knights or something that all can have their own squads to command. So you could have like 5 guys controled directly, and 30-40 guys under them acting on their own.

Hmmm.  Sounds like that's moving into RTT territory.  Turn-based tactics tend to be annoying when very long distances come into play, especially when you're using melee--that's why console tactics games have small maps, for one thing.  And I know I don't like spending four turns moving my X-Com guys into siege position around a UFO's door.  Multiple squads mean big maps, and AI means watching the computer fight itself, which is better in real-time than it is watching one unit move at a time for the entire 30-unit AI force versus a comparable enemy force each time you're done with your turn.

Also, turn-based tactics almost invariably means grid-based, and AI is often not too great with positioning your guys on a grid.  Maybe better AI can help that, but I just can't imagine Close Combat working on a grid, for example...  Besides, if you want anything like realistic melee combat, you start needing to throw grid-based away too.

I mean, I won't lie, it DOES sound like a lot of fun.  But not real-time or grid-based, to me.

I love this idea.  But then, games with the sense that you arn't the only person/group of people actively shaping the world in a game... is pretty few and far between...

I would also love a real PoW system, where there is a good chance of your troops being captured when fainted/dead...  Unlike Valkyria Chronicles for example... the enemy moves up to one of your down guys... and wtf do they do?  Shoot a downed soldier.  Thats what they do, thats what everyone does.  There are no PoWs, no quarter, no prisoners taken... no mercy.   
It made no sense in that sort of game... >.>  I understand bleeding out and dying cause of that...
Then blam, that side mission... that implies there is some sort of PoW thing.  Lame.

Prisoner exchanges for the win and ransoming too... and prison camps.  If you execute your prisoners, enemies would give your troops the same courtesy too...  Thats what it should be like.  Your people could still be captured, even if you lose.

Thats what any tactical game needs... a PoW system that works both ways. 
Which brings to mind the Recurring Super Bob soldiers in a specific enemy squad/army...  Capture him and refuse to ransom him or exchange prisoners for him.  AI could do the same with one of your super soldiers, unless they get someone equivalent in exchange... or a lot of money.(Like emptying your coffers... kind of deal...)
These enemy squads could also have some sort of limited treasury... so they wouldn't be able to feed the player with money continuously...  and yea, there are allied squads too.

Hell, you can make a 'random story' with auto-events... for example: where the worst off squad can become the underdogs supported by the people... (it could even be yours... if you are the worst)
And the best off squad can also bring glory to their nation/country... in turn having more people who will be jealous and form coalitions to bring that army down to size... or finds way to shame em.

There will be so many possible auto-events that could trigger together in a somewhat coherent storyline.   Gotta make each squad interesting too, with their own unique leaders and sub-soldiers...

So many paths to take... to world conquest, peace... or to a glorious doom...  or if you'd like, surrender and work for your conquerors... with most of your squad held in potentially dangerous environments... replaced with some of their troops... to keep you in line and to keep an eye...

No game will be the same...  Just too bad it would take ages and ages of work...  to make for all the possibilities of an open ended story based tactical game. 


Thats my idea of what a tactical game should have...  of course, there needs to be multiple sides and fronts in this world...

[Mephansteras]

When I have money to start my own game company, I've got a game like that I'm going to make.

Basically a very open-ended tactical RPG (inspired a bit by Darklands). You start off with a small group of friends and go adventuring. You fight bandits, do mercenary work, even trade if you want. As you get money and fame you can hire more people, eventually leading hundreds of troops into battle.

The game would scale based on the number of troops. Just you and a few others, full tactical control. As you get bigger you get sub-commanders, and they lead the groups. You just lead them. Eventually, if you want, you can lead armies big enough that you're just doing strategic command decisions for large groups while your commanders do all the tactical stuff.

I just need the money to start making it...

[Zangi]

>.>  I'll buy it.  Heh.

But yea, I guess its too early to ask about it and give possible suggestions... 

[Sowelu]

The one I really want to make someday is a similar tiered concept, except it's set in the X-Com world, and you start out as a squad of backwater survivalists drivin' out to crash sites in your pickup trucks and shootin' them gray-skins with yer revolvers and yer huntin' rifles, then grabbing their stuff and driving home before X-Com's landing craft shows up.  You've got numbers and troops with pitifully low morale at first, the aliens have good weapons (though you start out fighting small scouts and alien species/weapons too weak even for the first missions of X-Com, the grunts and scouts that even the Sectoids boss around).  Diplomacy with state/county/federal governments and all the local police districts (they get PISSED when you drive around with AP rounds or rocket launchers...or when you raid them for equipment...especially when the USA is trying to stay neutral so the aliens don't nuke Washington).  Good rep when you show up to the terror missions X-Com won't waste their time on.  Full tactical control at first, then squad-based with AI appropriate for the units you're dealing with (reckless and/or cowardly).  Real-time in the tradition of Apocalypse, probably.

All of this is a totally different game from what I'm mostly brainstorming in this thread, but hey. 

[Zangi]

I keep really really wanting to make a Tactics game but I don't know what makes the grindfests good and what makes the grindfests annoying :x

1. I mean, is customization a good thing?  Or does it just let you make cheapshot characters that are overpowered?  Is grinding kind of thrilling just for the sake of big numbers, or is it totally pointless?  If you go too much in the Shining Force direction, you wind up with just chess.  And hey, chess is fun, but you might as well just play chess.  Part of the tactics experience is that every battle is a little different.

2. How many characters are good?  Is it good to encourage the player to have fifty characters, or do you want them to rely on eight or so main ones so their attention isn't so divided?  How many characters do you want on the field...is six too few, is fourteen too many?

3. And how often do you want to introduce new abilities?  Should new ones be more powerful?  If you start out the game with those bizarre mathematical FFT classes, or summoners or whatever, do you lose something important in terms of game progression?  On the other hand, if those classes normally become available during the plot, how does that apply to a game that's plot-light, grind-heavy?

4. For my own part, I'm thinking around sixteen characters is good, eight on the field at a time, and no permadeath like X-Com has.  I'm imagining a system where you can grind for stats in two ways; either leveling up your characters in easy-ish fights (95% chance of winning most of the time?), or facing more challenging opponents (75% chance of winning?) to unlock new things.  Leveling up giving actually pretty small bonuses.  And then having some hard modes like Disgaea's item world, too, that again gives a noticeable boost but not one that totally breaks your characters.  I don't want a plot because plots get in the way, and you're always like "am I too low level for this?  Am I too high level for this?".  I'd REALLY like to do an Item World style thing where you go into worlds inside your characters, beating bosses to unlock hidden potential.

5. One thing I'm really torn on is, it'd be neat to have something vaguely like a tech tree, where unlocking each new class/ability/etc is more expensive than the last but you get to choose what order to do it in, and your first choice is always cheap.  Or something where you need to beat slightly harder bosses to unlock the next class each time.  But that could also be pretty lame if you made stupid choices and aren't strong enough to unlock stuff you need.

So, for people who are already know they are willing to spend 40 hours on a Tactics game, what keeps your interest?  What's boring that should be cut out?  How would you like to customize your characters and unlock new abilities?  How should the challenge be maintained?  Anything you ever really wished you could see?

1. On the part of customization, I believe the bigger problem is the more useless set-ups.  Not the overpowered.  People are always going to look for the best and stick with it.  Its like, you give the people the option to be a Bard.  But, it sucks. Horribly.  What is the point of its existence?   You give it 2 or 3 great unique skills to counter-act that, but, it still sucks on an overall basis.  In my opinion anyways..

2. A max of 5-6 is far too few... (damn FFT for that...)  You could make the max 20, but, it could be penalized with less exp/item gain after 14 people.  Bringing less then 8(?) people could mean better end battle rewards and exp bonus.  (It really depends...  don't really want to encourage people to bring the same 8 or less super soldiers all the time... a party experience pool could help with that problem..)  Dunno if you have an idea with using mounts... but they could be less penalizing...

Make it a tactical choice to bring whatever number of soldiers.  They would have a general idea of what the terrain is... and an oddball # of potential enemy... (if there is a scouting feature...) if its a small battlefield, they could bring less... if its a big open one, it would be better to bring more... Could also be a challenge run thing for people...

3. I'm not too into grind-heavy games... but for non-grind heavy...  I like your tech tree idea in 5... well... as long as the AI improves at a fairly decent rate also, which can depend on whatever factors...  Like winning/losing other AI v AI battles...  if that is a factor at all...

4. My PoW idea... >.>  and eh, I support the bleeding out idea.  Could make it lenient.

Personally, I have preference to emphasis on tactics, relying more on how you go about fighting then it is about what you gain from grinding... what you get grinding makes it easier to pull it off...  Like rushing blindly into a bunch of low level characters...  with some high levels = lowbies win kind of deal.

(Monster hunter anyone?)

That means the AI has to be good enough... to adapt to and learn from your tactics if it continously fights you.. and you repeat the same basic tactics everytime...

5. With the idea that tactics matter more then levels... hitting a brick wall shouldn't be a problem, unless the 'boss' or enemy... has so many tactical advantages over you that you the only winnable way is playing the way the 'DM' wants you to... or wanting you to absolutely have X class/trooper...

And if losing does not equal game over...  losing shouldn't really be a problem at all... sure, it'll set you back some... but hey, you can try again.

I like the idea of paying for upgrades/access to new classes/whatever...

[yamo]

i would like to see greater realism re: combat wounds.  If you get hit ONCE by a shotgun blast you are OUT of the battle...someone has to drag your sorry ass back to get medical treatment...if you get shot ONCE by a .45 i doubt you are going to do much of anything but bleed and groan...if you survive(unlikely) you are out for months.  Even in fantasy games...Lightning Bolt for 3 dmg?  HAH!  Go stand in a thunder storm holding a five iron over your head...then tell me you can still swing a sword after the first lightning strike.  My best tactic in jagged alliance/xcom is "Don't Die!"

[Goron]

i would like to see greater realism re: combat wounds. 

Oh god yes.
Although I don't have a problem with the xcom/JA method of handling damage (horribly wounded guy can heal to 100% after several days of resting), I would love to have a similar game that handles wounds with greater realism. Dangerous and gritty. When I play JA (I just installed the newest svn of Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13 last night after this thread) I set the weapon damage multipliers way up in the .ini. When you get shot, I want it to hurt. JA kind of handles more 'permanent' wounds by damaging attributes on critical hits to various body parts.

If you get hit ONCE by a shotgun blast you are OUT of the battle...someone has to drag your sorry ass back to get medical treatment...if you get shot ONCE by a .45 i doubt you are going to do much of anything but bleed and groan...if you survive(unlikely) you are out for months.  Even in fantasy games...Lightning Bolt for 3 dmg?  HAH!  Go stand in a thunder storm holding a five iron over your head...then tell me you can still swing a sword after the first lightning strike.  My best tactic in jagged alliance/xcom is "Don't Die!"

/Agree
And, remember, there is a poster in the loading scene from xcom apocalypse that reads: "Don't get hurt" 


Here is a list of some of my favorite (mostly squad based) tactics games:

Xcom (series)
The day critics stop hailing xcom as one of the best computer games of all time will be the day I lose faith in the world... that or it will be the day that enough AMAZING games come out that xcom will legit be replaced:-)
(guilty pleasure- I play/played xcom apocalypse much more than ufo defense and/or terror. I find it has better replay value)

Jagged Alliance (series)
mmmmmmmLove em. The stuff that the guys over at the bear's pit (http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/) are doing is phenomenal. sure the original was great, deadly games was awesome, but some hardcore fans have continued to develop JA2 to make it one of my favorite games of all time. JA2 is one of the few (only?) games that I have installed on every one of my computers all the time.

Wages of War: The Business of Battle
for some reason I always really liked this game... most people seem to like its successor Soldiers at War better, but not me. Unfortunately I think I am turned off by Soldiers because of the poor interface, resolution, and other usability factors, so I may not be getting an actual fair impression of the game

Silent Storm
I know, I know, its not perfect or even amazing... but I really like the potential that sort of game engine has. The tactical choices given to you are immense. If someone made a Jagged Alliance game on this engine (in the works, unless its been scrapped... again) it would likely be bloody amazing.

Close Combat (series)
This series was always great. Its a game where doing something stupid results in bad things... everytime.
You really need to utilize platoon tactics to succeed. Multiplayer was (is? I have not played in a while, maybe its still strong) awesome. The fact that I considered myself pretty darn good at the game, yet could still get my ass handed to me 10 times over online showed how important skill and tactics were.

101: The airborne Invasion of Normandy
I never actually owned this game. Therefore I never got that much play time in. But from the playing I did, it was a blast. I wonder if the guys over at Shrapnel are still making All American: The 82nd Airborne in Normandy

If I think of any more, I'll post:-)

[mendonca]

Jagged Alliance (series)
mmmmmmmLove em. The stuff that the guys over at the bear's pit (http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/) are doing is phenomenal. sure the original was great, deadly games was awesome, but some hardcore fans have continued to develop JA2 to make it one of my favorite games of all time. JA2 is one of the few (only?) games that I have installed on every one of my computers all the time.

Yeah yeah yeah. Awesome game.

Another interesting point on the enjoyment of tactical games - caring for your little people.

The developer's really did a good job about giving the JA mercs some character.


I really don't like it when Blood get's hit, I treat my South African friend carefully.

But his buddy, Ice? After he rejected my last contract, leaving me in the lurch before I could take the second mine and get the funds for some more mercs? I re-hired him a week later just so I could send him through the doors first.

Wolf is just a killing machine, camo-ed up with NV goggles and a few levels. The feeling when this man drops a red-shirt with a shotgun to the face, declaring "oooooh .... what a rush" (or something like that) ... never seemed to get boring 

Great voice acting, great humour, great characterisation, coupled with great tactical play - great game!

[Mephansteras]

I really liked the Fallout Tactics system. The game itself had a lot of flaws (and bugs), especially later on, but the early part of that game is great. I've never finished the game, but I think I've run through the beginning few levels a dozen times.

I've always felt that game would be better if it wasn't a linear story, and instead was a combination strategy/tactical game where your mission successes pushed out the control zone for the Brotherhood of Steel in that area. You could lose battles, and it'd just be a setback. You could always recoup, train up some more recruits, and try to take that town at a later point.

That..that would be fun.

[dei]

The best tactical strategy game I have ever played was Gadget Trial. I'm still playing through it for the following reasons-

• Interesting Plot - In Gadget Trial, you play as the cute all-female E-Series team called Team White, a group of five robot girls with fun, varied personalities. They are commanded by the harsh yet good hearted human Major that was assigned to them. You are to train the girls to fight wars in a future world as one-man armies. To do this, you must fight against the replica versions, Team Black, who are programmed to follow orders to the letter like perfect machines. Their commander, a bitch goddess of a major, is always taking the best stuff and providing her team with advanced units that you always get a map later. As such, Team White, consisting of Izen (infantry and medic), Nei (tank, scout and transport), Yu-ri (heavy artillery), Souka (air force), and Hisoka (navy) has to work twice as hard to be just as great if not greater. The plot is explained through cutscenes with nearly full voice-acting (the girls and the majors have voices), and interesting CG. This gets me hooked.
• Graphics - Decent graphics in a strategy game are a must, and in my case, this means anime graphics and sprites. While the units for both sides are identical, there are also ways to customize the units on Team White with outfits, like a Commando suit for Izen, a Yeager outfit for Nei, or a Maid outfit for Souka.
• Unique Strategy - In this game, the strategy consists of thinhgs like capturing structures, producing more units, and terrain. But! It also consists of things like what to have the girls wear, as each outfit gives them advantages AND disadvantages. The Yeager suit for Nei's tank unit, for example, ups attack and defense but makes tanks more costly to produce.
• Fanservice - while this doesn't necessarily exist much in the battles (except for some of the outfits), there are characters in the game whom I think act particularly fitting to some anime stereotypes. Not sure how to explain, but it's nice.
  
  Plus in the opening, boobs.

As for other strategy games, I've only played Warcraft I-III, Starcraft, and Fire Emblem GBA... Not too fond of them, as they don't have what I'm looking for.

[Sowelu]

Gadget Trial

Hrmmm.  I think that Tactics games (with a capital T...apparently...) are distinguished from this kind of strategy games in that they don't usually have on-map resources or unit production, and they almost always have individual units that persist throughout much of the game, not just the commanders.  Advance Wars is one of my favorite games, but it's entirely different genre from FFT, Disgaea etc.

(I'll still keep an eye out for that game!...but it's just not the same genre as this thread.)

[inaluct]

So, little robot girl team vs Badass Super Soldiers? But you have to play as the little girls?

Someone should make a game that takes place in a world where 98% of people over the age of 7 mysteriously died a few years ago. You can either control the insane feral children packs, or a group of survivors. I read a short story about something like that. It was one of the most badass stories I have ever laid eyes on.