Interview Age of Decadence - Big in France

[almondblight]

Lack of effective control, as described by VD, is what distracting me of further playing BG2. But back in the day, when i played JA2 - it was hard, but i was super motivated to try out other tactics, see how the actions plays out and control the situation. Even if i was getting pwned all the time i still enjoyed the "controled trials/playouts".

Agreed. Thought the infinity engine sucked in this case in general.

As I said:

" I had two thoughts:

...

2. This combat system sucks (not because of the difficulty, because of the general crappiness of Infinity Engine games) "

Though IWD grew on me, it felt like steering a firetruck from the back seat (or some better analogy of how frustrating it felt). I played Freedom Force after, and had no complaints about its controls. It somewhat won me over to the RTwP side after Infinity engine games made me think they were all worse than TB (I think IE would have been better if it didn't try to copy the DnD rules and turns.).

EDIT: I should say, however, this was mostly because of the delay. If I stop to think about it, the IE games are much better and much more tactical than the TB games I had been playing. Really, for all the "TB is superior to RT" comments here, do people wonder why JA2 and X-Com keep being mentioned? Only two TB games, and neither of them being RPG's? If RT is so obviously superior, how come we don't get more examples, at least some RPG examples.

 

[elander_]

Close Combat looks very good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_series
http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/close-combat-series

It looks very similar to Dark Omen where we control several squads and terrain coverage is important. There's tanks and you can order air strikes. The game is slow paced too.

Besides this looks very cool:

"There were five innovations in the Close Combat games compared to previous titles, which combined to make Close Combat more realistic than most RTT and RTS computer games:
Mental condition: Close Combat used a psychological (morale) model for each individual combatant. The combatant's morale would be affected by factors such as: being near officers, being supported by other units, being under fire, taking casualties, and being left without orders. Troops would be Stable when they there were in no danger, Cowering when pinned down by enemy fire or Panicked when surrounded by dead comrades, wounded or near enemy flamethrowers. The use of a psychological model made certain tactics common in RTS games, where the units will follow suicidal orders, impossible in Close Combat. For example, attempting a "mass rush", in Close Combat, would result in units seeking cover, refusing to obey orders or even deserting.
Experience: In Close Combat, reserve units or newly replaced troops would fire and move more slowly and be more likely to panic. Because of this, they would be unlikely to prevail against veteran troops. This is unlike most RTS games where all troops of a particular type act similarly.
Ammunition levels The game also modelled the amount of ammunition each unit possessed. Troops in a heavy fire-fight would quickly run out of ammunition. Once out of ammunition they would resort to bayonet fighting, or surrender to any enemies that approached them, although they could also scavenge weapons or ammunition from fallen friendly and enemy soldiers. This is in contrast to most RTS games, where units have unlimited ammunition supplies.
Physical state: In Close Combat, troops could be Healthy, Injured by enemy fire (in which case they would move and fire more slowly), Incapacitated if enemy fire caused the soldier to be unable to fight and finally Dead. This is in contrast to most RTS games, where units fight and move regardless of their closeness to death.
Stamina: In Close Combat, troops could be Rested, Winded after exerting themselves, in which case they would move slower until they were rested again, and Fatigued, after prolongued exertion, slowing them down for the rest of the battle. This is in contrast to most RTS games, where units do not tire."

When i get my old PC working again i will have to try this stuff.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Really, for all the "TB is superior to RT" comments here, do people wonder why JA2 and X-Com keep being mentioned? Only two TB games, and neither of them being RPG's? If RT is so obviously superior, how come we don't get more examples, at least some RPG examples.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the example in the interview was from Realms of Arkania. Jagged Alliance 2 is considered an RPG pretty much everywhere, including the Codex.

Other examples are Silent Storm and its more RPG-ish Hammer & Sickle cousin, Temple of Elemental Evil, Wizardry 8 (phase-based, I know), King's Bounty, Prelude to Darkness, etc.

 

[almondblight]

Yes, I know there are some examples, and they been brought up, but they seem to be the same few 10 or so games. My point being - if this is so common in TB RPG's, why are we even using X-Com as an example? I think the answer is that most games don't approach the level off X-Com (could be wrong here).

Does a few games make a trend? Or do some TB games break out, just as some RT games do? I do not know, but as I've played RT games that surpass TB ones, I mainly care about whether combat is good, not what style it uses. A good RT game is a good RT game, a bad TB game is a bad TB game, to me.

 

[almondblight]

Close Combat looks very good.

Combat Mission (at least the first) was good too. A mix between RT and TB. Personally, I feel RT is better suited for gun fights.

Haven't played JA or Silent Storm, though.

 

[almondblight]

Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I can think of any RPG's where you can't just look up a strategy guide and find the optimal way of handling a battle. Most battles are buff/debuff if you need to, send in fighters, blast/heal with mages. The fun part is finding the specifics of the battle, similar to trying to solve a puzzle in an adventure game. Like all closed systems, there's a "right" answer, and once you figure it out it doesn't require much thought. In games like Chess we often don't notice it as much because it's much harder to take into account all the variables, though it's still there (ever played Chess with someone who has played it too much, and they tell you to not make certain opening moves?).

Games like ToEE are cool because they add more pieces to the puzzle, but in the end it seems like 1-6 people, which most RPG's have, just aren't enough to make the battles deep.

You guys just ruined my enjoyment of combat with your need to dissect everything. Thanks a lot.

 

[elander_]

It's not only the mental challenge but the kind of strategies a game inspires the player. RT and TB games seams to inspire different ways of thinking about strategy games, which is good. In general you can't just turn a game for one system into another without rebalancing those games.

The DND ruleset was designed for PNPs, which are of a TB nature and it's use in computer games is only an adaptation, so it's natural that ToEE worked better with a TB system, at least when battles start having more than he usual few dozens of enemies we get in BG2. Note that with proper auto-pause rules, like pause every turn, RT becomes almost a phase based combat game (where you choose your actions, the enemy choose theirs and everyone acts after that).

One valid point given here is that if RT decision is a valid strategy element then pausing a RT strategy game is almost cheating. If pause is there because the combat is too boring in TB mode then the problem is not TB, it's the game that is boring, the rules that are too simple or the enemy AI that is dumbed down. The worst thing ou can do is to add a simple pause button to cover up for shitty gameplay.

 

[almondblight]

I agree with you mostly. I think in the end, my point of view is that the system should do what it's trying to do. If that can be handled better in TB or RT, that's what they should use. I think we can all agree that trying to tack on turns to the IE games made the combat worse. From what I've heard, the Arcanum games also suffered from the hybrid. I don't care which style the game uses, just that they make a good system, and only one part of that is deciding if it will be RT or TB.

That's pretty much my entire position, I have nothing else to say.

 

[BethesdaLove]

Basically, being able to focus on one unit at a time, going through all options and scenarios, is a lot more complex (and less chaotic) than dealing with all units at the same time.

Well, lawl...
I didn't expect it to boil down to it. Basically, RTWP as a system still to twitchy for you...

 

[Wyrmlord]

Really, for all the "TB is superior to RT" comments here, do people wonder why JA2 and X-Com keep being mentioned? Only two TB games, and neither of them being RPG's? If RT is so obviously superior, how come we don't get more examples, at least some RPG examples.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the example in the interview was from Realms of Arkania. Jagged Alliance 2 is considered an RPG pretty much everywhere, including the Codex.

Other examples are Silent Storm and its more RPG-ish Hammer & Sickle cousin, Temple of Elemental Evil, Wizardry 8 (phase-based, I know), King's Bounty, Prelude to Darkness, etc.

A very good example of a turn-based game is Betrayal At Krondor.

It is worth mentioning because it is well known even among modern audiences, a big favourite in abandonware/freeware sites, and quite accessible to first-timers.

And it has a pretty good system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, I know there are some examples, and they been brought up, but they seem to be the same few 10 or so games. My point being - if this is so common in TB RPG's, why are we even using X-Com as an example? I think the answer is that most games don't approach the level off X-Com (could be wrong here).

Well, that's true to some degree, but then again, it's not like TB games are still being made in North America, so the only examples one can offer are from the same "10 or so games".

You guys just ruined my enjoyment of combat with your need to dissect everything. Thanks a lot.

Basically, being able to focus on one unit at a time, going through all options and scenarios, is a lot more complex (and less chaotic) than dealing with all units at the same time.

Well, lawl...
I didn't expect it to boil down to it. Basically, RTWP as a system still to twitchy for you...

You disappoint me.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Well, that's true to some degree, but then again, it's not like TB games are still being made in North America, so the only examples one can offer are from the same "10 or so games".

If phase-based can be considered turn-based, that is still alot more examples to use.

 

[Jasede]

Well, this is a tough one.

I suspect a lot of this debate stems from differing concepts of tactical and strategic. To me, tactical always meant this: "The actions you take to win in a given battle."

So I went and looked it up:

1: of or relating to combat tactics: as a (1): of or occurring at the battlefront <a> <a> (2): using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront <tactical> bof an air force : of, relating to, or designed for air attack in close support of friendly ground forces
2 a: of or relating to tactics: as (1): of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose.

Now you have to notice that the parts are bolded, in a game, are fairly relative. What is a small scale? In X-Com, the small scale is your troop-movement during the actual fight, as opposed to your overall strategy during it and the Geoscape.

So the strategy is: "I will bring 8 Gauss Rifles, a bunch of armor, some proximity grenades and some heavy-duty explosive and my new recruits." for the Geoscape. The other part of strategy, during the battle, would be "I will give orders to kill all aliens around the Triton, then take over their ship."

The tactics are the actual execution by the individual soldier - how they go about doing what the strategy has dictated, and how it is implemented during the fight. The strategy - to kill all the nearby aliens - leaves a lot of room on how to accomplish this. You could send out the soldiers in pairs, having a scout spot aliens and having spotters use aimed shots at long range; you could throw grenades towards where you suspected movement, you could very carefully advance in small 1-man commando groups exploiting the terrain for cover as best as possible and vibro-blading enemies up close. That's the tactics.

What we're trying to find out is: Can Dark Omen / Shadow of the Horned Rat be called tactical even though it is real-time? If so, is it less tactical than a turn-based (roleplaying, for the most part) game?

Now you will see I tried to adopt a very fair definition of tactics. But it is also a relative one. Let's take Dark Omen as an example, which of course, as a given, gives us many strategic options. What regiments do I take into battle? Who should get XP? Who gets what magical item? What side-missions can I afford to take, and what troops can I replace with my limited budget? - I find this comparable to the Geoscape - albeit with perhaps a little less depth.

During an actual battle we have an overlying strategical goal - much like in X-Com. For example it could be "We'll take this hill, hope we can thin out enemies from ranged fire there, and then complete objective X."

To me, the actual execution of this strategy is what I have found to be "tactics". Where exactly do I move my troops? Where should they face? What spells would impede the enemy the best? What enemy is going to arrive first at what regiment should fight them for the least amount of losses on our side.

It makes, to me, no difference if these choices are made quickly, in real-time, or with all due thought in turn-based combat. I understand and admit that it is quite possible to say that TB has "more" tactical options- because it is much easier to give a lot of input in a smaller scale. This is why TB is (in certain ways) better than real time: you can issue a lot of commands in a single turn. It IS true that in real life things happen fast, but that's exactly why in a real time game, we can't keep up - unless we were Korean, of course.

so, uh, what's this all boil down to? I know I wrote too much. See, here's the gist: I think that RtwP and realtime can absolutely be tactical. I think I illustrated that well.

Now for the question, would Dark Omen be more tactical if it were TB- it's a tough one to me. But if you read my arguments it's absolutely logical to say this is true. You have to remember: I don't say this easily. I love Dark Omen the way it is, so I don't feel too well, but I have to at least respect my arguments laid out before: so I'll say DO is very tactical in its own right, but from what I said, it follows that if it were TB, it would be even more so.

 

[nomask7]

More tactical or not, I'd say Dark Omen is better as it is, more exciting. Turn-based games would have to be really, really complex, chess-like, to provide a challenge when you can plan your moves for as long as you like, and then without any haste make the move. Still haven't found a good AI for Company of Heroes. If I couldn't pause the game, it would at least be challenging and I might have played it more than a couple of times.

In the Horned Rat manual, the developers explain why they used realtime instead of turn-based. They didn't want to just slap the existing table-top game onto the computer, but wanted to make something that took advantage of the medium. Tabletop games are turn-based for an obvious reason. Computers have no such limitations.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

a lot of good stuff

Strategy and Tactics. Let us use chess analogies to clear this up and translate it to typical RPG combat situations. As you said Strategy is the overall, the larger plan. Like the decision to seize a kingside attack in chess. In a combat situation in your typical RPG this would include things like:
- how do i equip my troops
- which troops/party members do i bring there
- which items/tools have I ready
Even something like the objective "I kill the enemy mage and cleric first" is a strategic goal.
The actual steps taken to achieve the strategic goals; this is the tactics part.
In chess this would be the initial 2 pawn sacrifices for example, followed up by a piece sac + the killing (mating) blow. In your RPG this would be your Wizard starting the action by casting Breach on the enemy mage followed up by the rogue coming out of shadows and sneak-attacking him to death.

Anyway, is turnbased more tactical than realtime? I say no. Not if you consider the quantity of tactics applied. This is like blitz-chess vs long games. Blitz is often full of tactics, especially because in long games a lot of (strategical) prevention takes place, making decisive tactics more difficult.

However, you can observe that often the quality of tactics applied in long games exceeds those of blitzgames by far. Exceptions always apply.

The same is valid for TB vs. RT. Turn-based gives you the vast array of options and the necessary time and perfect coordination required to deliver some deep, stunning, unexpected and exciting high quality tactics ... as opposed to realtime - where a lot of tactics happen, but often they are more basic or simplified and repetitive too.

But i don't think this translates into a higher difficulty in turn-based RPGs. ToEE is a good example for quite the opposite. The perfect coordination and efficiency of your actions make the game increasingly easier the more options (levels) you get. It might be that some fights would have been more difficult were the encounters realtime. Next example: BG2 with Ascension/Tactics. If the combat were turnbased some really difficult stuff would have been only half as difficult. Having the ability/time/options to come up with the most efficient approach in TB will let you prevail easily - or at least easier.

Regardless of TB or RT in the end the difficulty of an encounter is desided by the design of the encounter itself, not by the combatsystem in use.

But if you enjoy combat where you have a shitload of options to *carefully* consider, and then to come up with some creative, unexpected and striking approach - and this is really fun - then TB is better than RT. Not neccessarily more difficult, but more fun... for me that is.

 

[nomask7]

Even chess is boring as hell once you've learned it. That's because there's no randomness involved.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Even chess is boring as hell once you've learned it. That's because there's no randomness involved.

No. Just no. Chess is an eternal struggle. There is no boredom involved.
Why do u lie?

 

[nomask7]

Move 53, going as planned. Move 54, mmm, I didn't expect that, now let me rethink. Move 98, going as planned. Move 99, check mate, mate. You need to learn how to play chess.

 

[Jasede]

I have to say that I like VoD's post and agree with it due to reasons already outlined.

I am not willing to say RtwP/RT is inferior to TB in any given situation - they both have drawbacks and advantages, and I think a lot has been said for both things.

Now if you want my personal opinion: I like my Dark Omen in realtime. It's how I imagine a battle of such a scale; I'd enjoy it less in TB (though I can't say for sure). I enjoy the rush in that game that you have to make quick decisions. It is fun.

Equally fun, however, is to take your time and carefully plan out an approch in X-Com, or Master of Magic and especially Jagged Alliance 2.

Both systems, of course, have merits, but at the end of the day, I will at least say this: if I ever make an RPG that focuses on a party or a single character, it will definitely be TB because in that sort of game I enjoy that mode of play the most- similarly, were I ever wanting to make regiment-based strategy, I would prefer it to be real-time. I will gladly, in such a game choose the, by my own reasoning, less "deep" tactics because, well, because I do and for me, in a game like that, the merits certainly outweigh the benefits. And I think I already argued that even though that particular game is less "deep" (what a lofty word) than if it were TB, it is still worlds deeper than pretty much anything I have played in the last five years.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Move 53, going as planned. Move 54, mmm, I didn't expect that, now let me rethink. Move 98, going as planned. Move 99, check mate, mate. You need to learn how to play chess.

I play tournament chess for many years... it seems to me you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Hory]

Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I can think of any RPG's where you can't just look up a strategy guide and find the optimal way of handling a battle. Most battles are buff/debuff if you need to, send in fighters, blast/heal with mages. The fun part is finding the specifics of the battle, similar to trying to solve a puzzle in an adventure game. Like all closed systems, there's a "right" answer, and once you figure it out it doesn't require much thought.

That's why I always say that fantasy dungeon crawling sucks. Writing a tactical walk-through for JA2 is a lot more difficult.

You guys just ruined my enjoyment of combat with your need to dissect everything. Thanks a lot.

If we know the limits we can overcome them... or something.

Even chess is boring as hell once you've learned it. That's because there's no randomness involved.

The difference is that it takes dozens of years to reach a point where you can say there's nothing else left to learn in it. Even so, which activity does stay interesting for your entire life?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

The difference is that it takes dozens of years to reach a point where you can say there's nothing else left to learn in it. Even so, which activity does stay interesting for your entire life?

This point does never come. Not even for the greatest.

 

[Jasede]

You never know, maybe Hory is a shunned, reclusive ultra-grandmaster who is so good that he realized there is no more need to compete- he'd win every game because he can no longer make any mistakes.

 

[nomask7]

The difference is that it takes dozens of years to reach a point where you can say there's nothing else left to learn in it. Even so, which activity does stay interesting for your entire life?

What was the alternative again? Chess with dice?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

You never know, maybe Hory is a shunned, reclusive ultra-grandmaster who is so good that he realized there is no more need to compete- he'd win every game because he can no longer many any mistakes.

OK i guess i have to consider the possibility...