At the moment, I just need to figure out how my 6 armed troll will attack. At this point I might have to create several action points per category, but I'm not sure I like how complex it seems to make the system.
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.
But I personally like systems where actions cost AP varying from 1 to 10, and a normal unit has somewhere between 5 and 8 per turn, and you can do however many you can afford
It depends on how many units you plant to interact on the same level at once. If only 4-5 units coexist on each side, this could be viable. Any more though, and you'll risk confusion, longer turns, and overall lack of involvement in the gameplay. It depends if the scope of your game is to depict War or Battles. Inherently, this relates back to whether you depict heroes, or units.
This is a good idea. I actually was toying with this concept the other day, but I just don't know what each unit could possibly spend them on each turn.
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).
I like this design. Especially the Attack, Move, Attack option. Far too many systems just end movement once you attack.
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.
The reason for this design is that I have weapons and shields that provide different bonuses to parry and block attempts.
To my first question, it appears your focus is on smaller scale battles with actual Dueling?
the new XCOM works great with only 1 or 2 actions per unit. It is a shooter, though, and you seem to focus on melee.
Exactly my point: 2 actions is best. Besides, XCOM actually uses several melee scenarios ranging from dedicated enemy units that fight only upclose (actually two types), the need to capture enemies alive with melee weaponry which forces more stealth, the lovely shotgun units that could technically fire from afar (but can you really resist that 100% hit 100% critic rate from upclose?) and the ability to tank on the damage with dedicated meatshields (thank you S.H.I.V.s!).
Yeah, the thing with buffs and debuffs is you don't want the player to have to use them every turn, it gets annoying fast. You want to do something like, the player uses "entrench", they gain a defense bonus as long as they don't move, vs. the player uses "hyper", they gain extra movement but lose attack effectiveness.
XCOM uses the regular cover system from other games. Basically, where you move matters more and provides you with cover (walls, debris, etc) which make you harder and harder to hit depending on how much junk there is between you and them. The cover is also destructible for more fun. I think its better than having to skip actions to buff. The one action I really think works well though is the one where you hold off your fire and hit the first thing that moves in sight.
To this end, I've created a defensive action called "Disengage"
Love it, plus, you created that for the right reasons. Now I wish D&D had a disengage action...
The other defensive action I have is called "Dodge" it's a passive ability that gives you a bonus to avoid the next attack.
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?)
What I'm worried about is that you can't automatically end the turn once the unit has completed its attack. The player must press the Next button to continue. In XCOM, the game automatically ends movement once the attack is made, this keeps the game moving.
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).
Your concept seems to add up nicely. When doing micro management in small steps, you need to remember that this way you cannot let a player control many units at the same time.
What sunandshadow suggested was a 1:1 relation of movement squares and action points. Units have each a different amount of action points, which represents their agility. Attacks all differ in cost. (PoxNora)
You dont need to have multiple actions for multiple attacks, btw. In Battle for Wesnoth a unit hits several times in one attack, (rolling for each attack separately).
You could have each attack cost 2 action points too, or even scale up to 3. I personally consider the attack to be the culmination of a unit's turn and want my units to be able to either make a strike or a decisive abilities (once) and move and make minor actions. I can see this current system as something that could potentially drift with players attacking 3 times in a row (which, imo, would be boring).
Also, i want to point out that combat roles imho are.. a lot of fun. It is important that you have unit types specialized for certain tasks (classes), which the players can easily identify from the visuals. It adds flavor and tactical depth. Id research a little in that area.
Agreed. Tactcal warfare still takes considerable advantage over these. The bare minimum is something that moves fast, something that can sustain damage, and something that deals a lot of damage. From these 3 spurs organic strategies. Everything else is gravy
But when you look at strategy and game theory in an anthropological way, as methods humans use to solve problems, you find that a combat role for a unit emerges naturally depending on how the player is attempting to use that particular unit. There just aren't that many things to do in combat, and the whole point of the game is to challenge the player to find an approach that is efficient yet flexible, or a set of approaches for different puzzle-like situations. Combat roles should be the player's tools that they play with in the game.
Well I'm not sure I understand your point. The Chariot was purposely used as a mobility advantage for efficient warfare. It really filled a role, and it was a unit class (so much in fact that it became a SOCIAL class as well in Ancient people). My field of studies was ancient military history, and I could probably name quite a few more units that were developed purposefully. The most striking example would be the use of the firearm with the sole intent of defeating heavy mounted knights which led to the complete eradication of the heavy cavalry in the early renaissance era.
One thing I'm debating right now is how to implement actions like parry and disarm. I started out by placing each of these actions under each weapon attack. That way if you had a dagger in one hand and a sword in the other, you could parry with one weapon and disarm with the other. I think that's a real choice in combat that I can give the player, but building it into the action system is a bit confusing.
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.
I want the concept of combat roles to be something the player does during his build / level up process.
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...
I mean what is wrong with a wizard who is a tank?
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)?