Will Combat be Action Point based?

[Ronin73]

yes, i agree. anything more than 41 kalashnikov 3-round bursts per turn would just be overpowered..
i mean, how do you balance for something like that?

By putting in more enemies and allowing the Rangers to hit 3 foes with a single burst. I mean, that's how it worked in the original, Desert Rangers are legendary when it comes to weapon use

Back on topic, I kind of figured it would be an action point system, but as others have said until specifics are released, it's difficult to judge it one way or the other.

Just out of curiosity would the 100 point system used in Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 hinder or help here?

[snakeoil]

seriously, change the action point system. use the CLASSIC skill system to manage combat.

-pcs with high awareness get to move or shoot first.
-the level of coordination will determine how far a pc can move.
-the speed skill will control the number of actions a pc can execute.

this system would be a lot tighter while being deeper and cleaner as a AP system. it wont disturb immersion since it is more plausible and logic. though it sounds simpler, connecting combat to CLASSIC offers so much more depth and complexity. other skills like luck/strength/charisma/intelligence could be implemented too.
even if you have aready invested work in the AP system, switch to a CLASSIC skill based system which should be a lot easier to integrate anyway. its a win win. i know how hard it is to scrap something you have already invested both time and money but for the sake of a great game please think about it or set up a poll. AP vs CLASSIC.
fellow forumers, please support this idea, i was against CLASSIC, but now that we have decided, lets use it to full extension. combat is too serious to use outdated mechanics. AP is not old school. blending skills and combat together is what old school RPG is all about.

[undecaf]

seriously, change the action point system...

Rather focus on doing it well instead, since that's what they've been designing so far. It's a waste of time and money to flipflop around on such large elements.

[snakeoil]

seriously, change the action point system...

Rather focus on doing it well instead, since that's what they've been designing so far. It's a waste of time and money to flipflop around on such large elements.

you are completely right, i wouldnt brought it up if i wasnt aware. flipfloping of large and central elements is nothing that should be done light hearted. but i think the combat system is too central and important to ignore. if you and all the other forumers think its not worth the effort, its ok to me. but when i take a step back and look at a action point system that has so many flaws vs a system that is based on the pcs skills, i really think its worth the pain. although you wouldnt see a graphical diffrence in combat, the diffrence under the bonnet would be huge in terms of the general feeling, depth and fun of combat. thats why i ask for a poll and for your support.

[Lucius]

seriously, change the action point system...

Rather focus on doing it well instead, since that's what they've been designing so far. It's a waste of time and money to flipflop around on such large elements.

We have no idea how far they are into it. If nothing has been coded yet, it really wouldn't be that difficult to adjust the system. It's also a waste of money to put out a game with horrid combat. Iteration and getting it right is important to the future of the game and hell the company's reputation. We don't have enough details to say this but we also don't have enough details to say it's too late to change the system.

[dorkboy]

@Drool
fair enough, i see your 'strawman' and raise you one 'argument' (well, hopefully):

-if- you think there is any reason whatsoever to balance the game towards making the "less obvious" weapon skills at least marginally useful for more than just a quick fraction of the early game, then, barring AP-based and/or melee sillyness etc.., you'll probably end up with ammo scarcity as one of your mechanisms of choice.
and since RPGs are great at keeping resources like ammo consistently scarce.. *sigh*
at least AP-differentiation can easily be maintained throughout the game.
i suppose damage types/status effects are a 3rd possibility?

i personally don't play turn-/AP-based games for the sheer speed thrills; if there is nothing for me to even consider [hmm, more damage at longer range or less damage at shorter range.. decisions decisions..] during a turn then combat becomes quite excrutiatingly dull and repetative quite double-quick (as in: wow this is taking forever..).

@Snakeoil: they're hardly going to base AP amounts on stats that are not in the game. so, yeah, it may indeed be based on some of the CLASSIC stats/attributes. i'm having trouble deciding which stat (in your example) i think should determine what.. especially speed vs. coordination. if i switch them around they kinda make just as much sense to me..


Edit: @Ronin73: idk, i've always felt that 100-AP systems are all grain and no.. advantage.

[Lucius]

@Drool
fair enough, i see your 'strawman' and raise you one 'argument' (well, hopefully):

-if- you think there is any reason whatsoever to balance the game towards making the "less obvious" weapon skills at least marginally useful for more than just a quick fraction of the early game, then, barring AP-based and/or melee sillyness etc.., you'll probably end up with ammo scarcity as one of your mechanisms of choice.
and since RPGs are great at keeping resources like ammo consistently scarce.. *sigh*
at least AP-differentiation can easily be maintained throughout the game.
i suppose damage types/status effects are a 3rd possibility?

In my opinion, handguns shouldn't be viable the entire game. They aren't as powerful as assault rifles and take no less time to fire. They SHOULD become obsolete imo. However, there can be a mechanic where rifles have diminishing returns on accuracy in short range situations making pistols viable due to their superior accuracy.

[undecaf]

seriously, change the action point system...

Rather focus on doing it well instead, since that's what they've been designing so far. It's a waste of time and money to flipflop around on such large elements.

you are completely right, i wouldnt brought it up if i wasnt aware. flipfloping of large and central elements is nothing that should be done light hearted. but i think the combat system is too central and important to ignore. if you and all the other forumers think its not worth the effort, its ok to me. but when i take a step back and look at a action point system that has so many flaws vs a system that is based on the pcs skills, i really think its worth the pain. although you wouldnt see a graphical diffrence in combat, the diffrence under the bonnet would be huge in terms of the general feel and fun of combat. thats why i ask for a poll and for your support.

Your "flaws" may well be my main source of excitement. I find an AP system much more fun to play than a completely character based system. I find it much more involving and interesting. I wouldn't have complained if they had chosen a system similiar to what you suggest, though, but since an AP system is what I hoped for since the beginning, I consider myself the lucky one here and obviously wouldn't want it to change anymore.

This is a feature of the magnitude that - in my opinion - should not be asked about in a "forum poll". Not anymore anyway. If there was an actual shitstorm about how bad the choice was, I would understand something like that to be done. But this is just few people discussing in one thread. A couple disagreeing and few more agreeing. There's no point for a poll. They should obviously listen to our concerns and ideas, but we're not the ones designing the game. We also have no details about how the intended AP system will work; all info we have, is that there will be AP's and there won't be rounds.

We have no idea how far they are into it. If nothing has been coded yet, it really wouldn't be that difficult to adjust the system. It's also a waste of money to put out a game with horrid combat. Iteration and getting it right is important to the future of the game and hell the company's reputation. We don't have enough details to say this but we also don't have enough details to say it's too late to change the system.

They have obviously given it some serious thought to it since they were ready to say "This is how it will be" rather than "We're thinking about this kind of stuff". From that, I'd say they have a pretty strong basis for what they intend. And I'd very much like them to follow their own (stated) idea and do it the best they can rather than being indecisive about it and going back and forth with it.

Awful combat is obviously not a good thing. But who decides what is awful and what is not within this context and with the very few details we have? You don't like AP's (that's clear) because you need to count, but does that constitute "awful combat" in general? I don't think so.

[dorkboy]

In my opinion, handguns shouldn't be viable the entire game. They aren't as powerful as assault rifles and take no less time to fire. They SHOULD become obsolete imo. However, there can be a mechanic where rifles have diminishing returns on accuracy in short range situations making pistols viable due to their superior accuracy.

sure, that is one possibility. would make sawed off shotguns good for something
another approach is making reloading slow so that you'll need a loaded backup weapon if you get in a pinch. that would depend on the nature of the hardpoints thingie, though.

[Lucius]

I agree this is not a topic suited to a forum poll. This is a topic that MUST be right though. If they go with a streamlined combat system the AP crowd will consider it dumbed down. If they go with APs others will complain combat is too bogged down, long and boring. Early on they said combat will be tactical but quick. I dont see how they will achieve that with an AP system.

[dorkboy]

I agree this is not a topic suited to a forum poll. This is a topic that MUST be right though. If they go with a streamlined combat system the AP crowd will consider it dumbed down. If they go with APs others will complain combat is too bogged down, long and boring. Early on they said combat will be tactical but quick. I dont see how they will achieve that with an AP system.

i don't see how they'll make combat tactical and -quick- without scripted enemy spawns.. at least, that's the latest impression i'm getting from XCOM; you start approximately 1 movement away from spotting the first group of enemies, then another one spawns when you peek around the corner afterwards. the game seems to slow down considerably when some poor sectoid jerk has ended up in the wrong place and you can't immediately find it..
i could be completely wrong, though..

[undecaf]

They can't please everyone. If it is an either/or situation for people, someone will be disappointed.

That said, I think this discussion - since the outline of the system has been given - should be more about how to make it work, rather than "discard this -- no, do not".

I also recall Fargo saying in some interview that there'll be a sort of "quick combat" option. Something to the effect of, "if you feel combat is tedious, you can just let the characters handle it" or something. (IIRC) I don't know how that'll work since nothing else has been said about it -- but I remember thinking that it'll probably be a sort of "phase based" system to speed up some of the more tedious fights against (much) lower level enemies; though who says it can't be used in the harder fights too. Dunno though.

Would be nice if Darktwinkie, or someone would give an additional hint about this "quick combat" option (if it even exists and I've just been dreaming all along).

[Mandemon]

I agree this is not a topic suited to a forum poll. This is a topic that MUST be right though. If they go with a streamlined combat system the AP crowd will consider it dumbed down. If they go with APs others will complain combat is too bogged down, long and boring. Early on they said combat will be tactical but quick. I dont see how they will achieve that with an AP system.

i don't see how they'll make combat tactical and -quick- without scripted enemy spawns.. at least, that's the latest impression i'm getting from XCOM; you start approximately 1 movement away from spotting the first group of enemies, then another one spawns when you peek around the corner afterwards. the game seems to slow down considerably when some poor sectoid jerk has ended up in the wrong place and you can't immediately find it..
i could be completely wrong, though..

Want to point this one out, since it's wrong in certain degree.

There are certain areas where enemies can spawn. Sometimes, it will take 4-5 turns to find them (I have this happen to me), especially if you advance carefully and slowly. Sometimes your first move can cause all aliens on the map to gang up on you, depending where they are at the moment. It depends on map. Small grave yard map is the worst offender, due to it's size. It is very easy to have all the aliens to either stumble on you during their patrol OR encounter them during the first two turns.

However, aliens are NOT spawned during the mission. They are all places on the map BEFORE you start the mission. Game does not spawn additional enemies per request. All enemies are on the map right away.

Only scripted spawns are in Council missions, where Thin Men reinforcements enter the battlefield. On every other mission, the aliens are pre-placed on the map and run patrols or guard duties.

[Brother None]

I agree this is not a topic suited to a forum poll. This is a topic that MUST be right though. If they go with a streamlined combat system the AP crowd will consider it dumbed down. If they go with APs others will complain combat is too bogged down, long and boring. Early on they said combat will be tactical but quick. I dont see how they will achieve that with an AP system.

There will be an AP system, that much has already been confirmed in this thread. I've been talking about it with Chris and it is definitely NOT a one-action-per-point system.

How does it balance and work? That's a matter of implementation and iteration. He agrees AP bloat should be avoided, and they're not ramping it up to some crazy 25 AP per person system, but the exact balance of AP and action to have it both tactical and quick is a matter of iteration, which means it's not solidified right now, and is exactly one of those things the beta can help polish and balance out.

[Zeful]

There will be an AP system, that much has already been confirmed in this thread. I've been talking about it with Chris and it is definitely NOT a one-action-per-point system.

How does it balance and work? That's a matter of implementation and iteration. He agrees AP bloat should be avoided, and they're not ramping it up to some crazy 25 AP per person system, but the exact balance of AP and action to have it both tactical and quick is a matter of iteration, which means it's not solidified right now, and is exactly one of those things the beta can help polish and balance out.

Just to weigh in, if I have to open another program to plan out my turns, the AP system has been implemented wrong.

[Mandemon]

Just to weigh in, if I have to open another program to plan out my turns, the AP system has been implemented wrong.

So true. To add to this: If combat require more math to count action cost than thinking what is the tactical choice, it's implemented wrong.

[Lucius]

So true. To add to this: If combat require more math to count action cost than thinking what is the tactical choice, it's implemented wrong.

Exactly this is what I've been trying to say! Turns should require tactical thoughts, not what actions can i squeeze in to my AP allowance. I feel like action point cost should not be what I'm thinking about all through combat, but the tactical situation instead.

I'm disappointed because one action per point is the only compromise between AP and phase based. But like I said earlier, I won't make final judgement until playing.

Also an auto-resolve feature does not belong in an RPG, imo.

I'd like to share my experience with Fallout to explain my dislike of APs. Early on, there is a cave with radscorpions. I quickly learned if I attack from x tiles away and move back 4, rinse/repeat, I could kite the scorpion and he can only attack me every other round. The combat was centered on wasting the AI's action points and it was painfully obvious I had beaten the mechanics. Same thing could be done with ranged opponents by moving away and forcing them to waste their AP moving into range. Try as you might, I could never cheese XCOM's combat like this, making me think that is proper tactical turn based because I always thought how do i survive this, not how can I beat the mechanics of the game.

[under_dog]

from what we know, the combat system could be anything.
We know it will be AP based and taht the speed skill allows for more turn.
Now it could be all actions tied to one AP gauge, or AP per phase, or even cumulative AP - guard cost if a turn is skipped...

So what's been coonfirmed so far is that it's AP based and at the same time skill based, so i quite not understand what all the fuss is about. But i might be missing something

[Brother None]

from what we know, the combat system could be anything

Their main inspirations in combat include the likes of Jagged Alliance 2 and even Fallout: Tactics. Not saying it'll be identical to those, and that description is still vague and gives a lot of leeway, but we've known about that since during the Kickstarter drive, so it's no surprise to hear it'll use a similar action point-based system.

[under_dog]

from what we know, the combat system could be anything

Their main inspirations in combat include the likes of Jagged Alliance 2 and even Fallout: Tactics. Not saying it'll be identical to those, and that description is still vague and gives a lot of leeway, but we've known about that since during the Kickstarter drive, so it's no surprise to hear it'll use a similar action point-based system.

That's the kind of system i expected from day one, of course the game has yet to find its definitive identity, and i'm sure they'll refine the combat as iteration goes. Fallout tactics was a great game in its combat mechanics at least ! I played the hell out of JA, i don't know if JA2 is so different from the first one ?