Please define the problem: As far as I see this, you can still make the 6 armed troll a regular attacker with a different attack pattern. "Descent: Journeys in the Dark" 1st Edition solves this by giving the Giant a "sweep" attack which basically hits all of its adjacent enemies rather than a target.
Well my game supports characters that have up to six arms (mutants, robots etc...) What this means is that a player could have a several weapons and even shields equiped. Rolling all the attacks up into one sweeping action isn't something I want to do because the player should be able to chose the targets he can attack. He might have 2 ranged weapons, 2 melee weapons, and a shield equipped. But yes, the problem is that characters with more than 2 hands wouldn't be able to move as far, but that might just balance things out.
You could have certain actions cost 1 or 2 APs. That would help you balance things out (rather than put 3 APs which could lead to longer turns).
Thanks, I'm going to test that idea out. I was also thinking that each unit could have a movement cost per square. That way fast units can move more squares per action point.
In "Descent: Journeys in the Dark" They've solved the matter more elegantly. Rather than give too many actions, they've given the players and monsters, they've made it so that an action spent moving gives you movement points, and that you can spend these movement points before and/or after attacking. This gives you to ability to rush in and attack, or attack and run away, or even move forward, strike and then return into formation. VERY fun and intuitive to use.
Thanks, I'll have to check that game out. Sounds like it's got some great mechanics.
To my first question, it appears your focus is on smaller scale battles with actual Dueling?
Well I'm trying to create a game that's focused on battles between small groups of units. The player controls a party of characters (6-8) and might fight up to 50 units at most.
Love it, plus, you created that for the right reasons. Now I wish D&D had a disengage action...
Actually, 3e had the withdraw action, 4e has the shift action, and 5e (playtest) has the disengage action.
Generally speaking, the best defense is a good offense. Do you have tangible scenarios where a player would choose to play that Dodge as part of a greater strategy? (Luring the opponent's attacks perhaps?)
Dodge is a passive ability that you might use an action point on I thought it would be a good ability since there are situations in which you don't want to be hit (when you are surrounded) or might not be able to attack. It sucks having to move and then end your turn because you have nothing to attack. Anyway, if it only costs 1 AP and an attack costs 2 APs then it might be useful. My only worry is that the player will always be using it (having to click on it every round).
XCOM uses a lot of hotkeys too, besides, tactical games are less action-oriented, so players tend to be forgiving. In fact, they might forgive you more as it may give them the ability to repair costly mistakes (such as attacking without taking cover first and then slap their forehead).
Yes, I do recal being upset with XCOM when my character had his turned automatically end. Tactical games should be more forgiving.
In Descent, they've solved this by allowing you to attack with only one of your weapons. Any unused weapon you could have in one of your hands would give its "offhand bonus".
In your case, I'd try to implement the following:
Sword (x damage) offhand: parry
Dagger (x damage) offhand: disarm
If you are attacking with the sword, you will also automatically attempt to disarm. If you attack with the dagger, you will also automatically parry.
That's the kind of "gamist" mechanic I want to avoid. I'm trying to design a more detailed system. IMO, if you have two weapons then you should get two attacks. You should be able to use those attacks to make two disarms or even two parries. With that said, I'm having a hard time designing the UI for such a system. At the moment, I've pulled disarm and parry out of the weapon attack options and simply made them maneuvers that cost action points.
Oh, there's a levelup process? then yes, obviously, you want the player to be able to modulate his own strategies into the characters he has. If he can lose them as they die all the better. One of my particular satisfactions in XCOM was when I've lost my highest ranked heavy in a mission and had to repurpose my assault and support to fill its spot temporarily (and see that I had planned this well!). Beware the meatshields...
Before I can even begin to design a level up system or feat build tree (which I might try to avoid), I need to understand the action economy of my game. The reason is that some abilities might cost more or less actions points for some characters.
That's a Warlock isn't it? Jokes aside, I agree with how you envision this. Do you intend to have each unit start with the same stats, or organic differences you can take advantage of (given randomly)?
Death to WoW Tropes.