Firaxis + XCOM, that is all. - by N'Al
demagogue on 11/1/2012 at 19:37
I've seen games with action-points & half-turns, and looking at them side by side, my feeling is they're just two different mechanics that play to different ways of thinking...
The thing about action-points is it kind of abstracts you away from the action, like you're not really watching the action itself but a computer feed of its stats, whereas a half-turn is like the nature of the action itself in this gameworld, but admittedly streamlined down. It's a definite tradeoff, but I think I'm okay with it given what the tactical part is about, like you're really landing these guys there and they're really running into harm's way, and you have these two half-turns to really act; it's more of a gut move than statistic optimizing. I don't know though. I can see the appeal of either way depending on your mood.
gunsmoke on 11/1/2012 at 21:10
What does TU mean?
catbarf on 11/1/2012 at 21:31
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
What does TU mean?
Turn units. Basically you get a bunch of points for each guy per turn, and different actions cost different numbers of these points.
Which isn't very far at all from just having two actions per turn like many tabletop RPGs, and it's just a
little bit obsessive and fanboyish to call the change a dealbreaker, major issue, or a sign of dumbing it down.
nicked on 12/1/2012 at 07:14
Quote Posted by catbarf
Turn units.
Time Units actually, to be pedantic. ;)
Koki on 12/1/2012 at 07:58
Quote Posted by catbarf
Which isn't very far at all from just having two actions per turn like many tabletop RPGs
Hahahaha, of course not.
Try playing the game sometime, or at least hit the wiki.
catbarf on 13/1/2012 at 00:13
Quote Posted by Koki
Hahahaha, of course not.
Try playing the game sometime, or at least hit the wiki.
Give every unit the same number of TUs, and round the cost of each action to be either free, cost half the TUs, or all of them, and suddenly it's exactly identical to the two-action per turn structure many games use. That's it. Minor change. So now maybe reloading takes a bit more of your turn or you don't run exactly as far, whoop-de-doo. It doesn't change that it's still the same turn-based system where you have a limited number of actions you can perform. As for your predictable bullshit, I've beaten the original X-Com as well as Terror from the Deep, and cannot fathom how removing the overly mechanical bean-counting involved in the action system would ruin this game as a successor.
Al_B on 13/1/2012 at 00:42
Quote Posted by catbarf
Give every unit the same number of TUs, and round the cost of each action to be either free, cost half the TUs, or all of them, and suddenly it's exactly identical to the two-action per turn structure many games use. That's it. Minor change
Sorry - but that's a huge change to the strategies available in the original. I may want to send a squad member with light arms on a scouting mission - or use him to escort a heavier armed member and reserve some of his time units to respond to unexpected events. If everyone can run as fast and do as much on each turn then I might as well equip everyone with the highest level equipment and just go in guns blazing.
For me, the originals worked because you were constantly balancing reserving time units, keeping people close enough to defend each other but not close enough that you can be taken out easily. Popping round a corner and coming face to face with an alien means either taking a pot-shot and hoping, ducking back in case can get another squad member in range - or attending (yet another) funeral because I'd run my squad member too far. In any event, the result would be my fault. Being limited to only one or two actions per turn would feel like the choice was being taken out of my control.
demagogue on 13/1/2012 at 03:25
Quote Posted by Al_B
If everyone can run as fast and do as much on each turn then I might as well equip everyone with the highest level equipment and just go in guns blazing.
For me, the originals worked because you were constantly balancing reserving time units, keeping people close enough to defend each other but not close enough that you can be taken out easily.
I think you're assuming too much with that top sentence. The way it looks from the screenshot & from the description, it sounds like some units can move farther than others in the turn they have (and you can probably choose to move them less than their full possible distance to keep them closer together), so this dynamic you're talking about would still be there in some form. Maybe some units can move a distance in 2-turns what it takes 3-turns for another unit to move.
Koki on 13/1/2012 at 07:10
Quote Posted by catbarf
Give every unit the same number of TUs, and round the cost of each action to be either free, cost half the TUs, or all of them, and suddenly it's exactly identical to the two-action per turn structure many games use. That's it. Minor change. So now maybe reloading takes a bit more of your turn or you don't run exactly as far, whoop-de-doo. It doesn't change that it's still the same turn-based system where you have a limited number of actions you can perform.
Hahaha, what bullshit. Why not say that Chess is identical to Jagged Alliance 2 because both have turns in which you can perform a limited amount of actions?
Half turn/turn as only possible action is retarded and offers a
fraction of possibilities and flexibility of TUs.
Al_B on 13/1/2012 at 12:13
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think you're assuming too much with that top sentence. The way it looks from the screenshot & from the description, it sounds like some units can move farther than others in the turn they have
I hope (and expect) that's the case. I was directing the sentence at catbarf's statement that every action should be "free, cost half the TUs, or all of them".
