It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I am to make a game inspired by Fallout Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel, but I am not sure whether or not to use a turn based strategy. I would like to make the game's combat and traveling interface as simple as possible, but I am not sure which system would be better. Let me know!
What are the odds of both systems being implemented, giving the player a option to play how they feel more comfortable with? Too much work, or way too hard?
Do both, like Arcanum.
Turn based. I prefer the stop and think style combat.
I prefer turned based. This is because my reflexes were awful in the first place, and aging hasn't helped.
I was thinking to have a turn based style for a team mission (i.e. XCOM) and real time for larger scale battles (Dune 2000). I would also make it possible to enter to the battle as a pawn to progress in a specific location, however, you would not be able to control other units while in this "focus" mode.
I was considering a number set. This means that your unit would have 60 steps and actions until the enemy makes their turn. When moving around the map, there would be a number of moves that you can commit to. For example: Member 1 moves 14 steps, covers, and uses fire (fires 4 bullets). This would remove 19 out of 60 moves. The less people you bring on a team mission, the larger the set that you can share between each other, however, the more capable enemies can overwhelm you. I want this game game to be as unforgiving, but generous when needed.

Give me some feedback. I would love to hear from you.
ick, i hate turn-based combat. If I see this on a game, no matter how good it may be, I won't play it.
TBS, absolutely. I might even argue that critical part of "Fallout-inspired" would be turn-based combat.
avatar
Crewdroog: ick, i hate turn-based combat. If I see this on a game, no matter how good it may be, I won't play it.
You should reall try the original 2 fallout games. They are some of the best ever, and I had never played TBS before that and it held my hand in getting into them. It takes a little patience and learning, but I think if you allow it, it can be quite rewarding.
Post edited December 03, 2015 by drealmer7
avatar
drealmer7: TBS, absolutely. I might even argue that critical part of "Fallout-inspired" would be turn-based combat.
avatar
Crewdroog: ick, i hate turn-based combat. If I see this on a game, no matter how good it may be, I won't play it.
avatar
drealmer7: You should reall try the original 2 fallout games. They are some of the best ever, and I had never played TBS before that and it held my hand in getting into them. It takes a little patience and learning, but I think if you allow it, it can be quite rewarding.
i did. I couldn't do it. I tried. I really did.
avatar
pancakejoe: I was considering a number set. This means that your unit would have 60 steps and actions until the enemy makes their turn. When moving around the map, there would be a number of moves that you can commit to. For example: Member 1 moves 14 steps, covers, and uses fire (fires 4 bullets). This would remove 19 out of 60 moves. The less people you bring on a team mission, the larger the set that you can share between each other, however, the more capable enemies can overwhelm you. I want this game game to be as unforgiving, but generous when needed.

Give me some feedback. I would love to hear from you.
I favor a system that implements return fire and interrupts. Let's imagine a 4-person squad vs 4-person just for ease. ABCD vs 1234.

Order of turns determined by a stat check - say, Initiative. Results: A 2 3 D C B 1 4
A has 60 action points. He uses 15 to run to cover in a position flanking 1. He uses another 5 points to fire his shotgun at 1. 1 returns fire with one shot from his pistol at a cost of 3 AP to be deducted from his turn later on.

Then, A uses 10 AC to rush 1, but his path crosses an open space and 2 interrupts the rush with a pistol shot.

Et Cetera
I have been a huge fan of the series for the majority of my life. My favorite Fallout is New Vegas only for the storyline and writing. Fallout Tactics was my favorite in terms of additive gameplay, but it is was very difficult learning curve and was a unforgiving experience. My favorite turned based strategy based game of all time is XCOM. I think that the game should have a new system that takes inspiration from the originals pioneers of strategy games.
Turn based or at least real time where you can freeze and give commands.
After talking with some friends, they have volunteered to help me with the programming for about 3 months. They told me that having two systems would be advisable. Have one style be a revamp of Fallout 2 with a dash of Fallout Tactics. The second should be XCOM with quicktime 3rd person shooter elements.
Real time with pause where you can give commands. A real time RPG with good(ie tactical) combat is better than a TB RPG with average TB combat. If you're calculating hits based on percentages from SPECIAL stats, isometric POV will probably be better since swinging at something and missing it even though you hit it (cough MORROWIND cough) feels like shit.