I'm currently making my first turn based tactical combat game and I'm interested in your feedback.

So far I've grouped all actions into 4 categories

1. Offensive

2. Defensive

3. Movement

4. Incidental (for actions like falling prone, taking cover, or opening a door)

Actions are managed by action points. Every unit gets 2 action points per round which can be spent on offensive, defensive, or movement actions. Incidental actions are free actions.

What this means is that in one round you can

1. move, attack

2. move, defend

3. move, move

4. defend, attack

5. attack twice

6. defend, defend (full defense)

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.

Can any of the experts here suggest a better action economy?

Apart from what you already, and the one that you can whatever with what ever action points you have, the alternative is this.....

Each turn, a Unit gets 3 different Action Points.

1 Action Point for Movement

1 Action Point for Action (Offensive or Defensive)

1 Action Point for any of the two.

This way, each turn, a unit can ...

Attack Attack Move

Move Attack Move

Move Attack Attack

Attack Move Attack

and such.

This will somewhat encourage players to utilize terrains and covers and flanking and positioning their soldiers, and not just keep attacking until one is dead.

You don't have a buffs/debuffs/charge up for next turn category? 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, so different combinations of moves are optimal for different units. In that kind of system MP are separate, except that your AP abilities can give you more MP or require you to sacrifice MP.

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.

Apart from what you already, and the one that you can whatever with what ever action points you have, the alternative is this.....

Each turn, a Unit gets 3 different Action Points.

1 Action Point for Movement

1 Action Point for Action (Offensive or Defensive)

1 Action Point for any of the two.

This way, each turn, a unit can ...

Attack Attack Move

Move Attack Move

Move Attack Attack

Attack Move Attack

and such.

This will somewhat encourage players to utilize terrains and covers and flanking and positioning their soldiers, and not just keep attacking until one is dead.

I like this design. Especially the Attack, Move, Attack option. Far too many systems just end movement once you attack.

I just think I need more options for Defensive actions. So far I only have Dodge and Tumble. Actions like parry, disarm, or block are provided per weapon. If you have a shield you can block or shield bash with it. If you have two weapons you can make a parry with one and disarm with the other, or even make a parry with each weapon. The reason for this design is that I have weapons and shields that provide different bonuses to parry and block attempts.

I just need to find a system that fits elegantly with my design and doesn't over complicate things. So far the added touch of realism is making this game a little more complex than I had anticipated.

I just think I need more options for Defensive actions. So far I only have Dodge and Tumble. Actions like parry, disarm, or block are provided per weapon. If you have a shield you can block or shield bash with it. If you have two weapons you can make a parry with one and disarm with the other, or even make a parry with each weapon. The reason for this design is that I have weapons and shields that provide different bonuses to parry and block attempts.

I just need to find a system that fits elegantly with my design and doesn't over complicate things. So far the added touch of realism is making this game a little more complex than I had anticipated.

Hey,

Can you clarify how the combat/turns works?
As you have a "defensive" move, does your game resolve the turns of each player at the same time?? (frozen synapse)
Then your resource currency is time (ms?), which works not very differently to sunandshadows suggestion.

I also work on a concept for a turn-based MP and i came to the conclusion to use two fixed actions
per turn, too. Managing multiple units as a team should be as intuitive as possible without the player having
to calculate much.
It also depends on the scale of possibilities for the player. Having only a party of 4 can have a more detailed,
complicated system while if the player has a lot of other stuff to do you should dumb it down a little.

BTW: 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.

I just think I need more options for Defensive actions. So far I only have Dodge and Tumble. Actions like parry, disarm, or block are provided per weapon. If you have a shield you can block or shield bash with it. If you have two weapons you can make a parry with one and disarm with the other, or even make a parry with each weapon. The reason for this design is that I have weapons and shields that provide different bonuses to parry and block attempts.

I just need to find a system that fits elegantly with my design and doesn't over complicate things. So far the added touch of realism is making this game a little more complex than I had anticipated.

Hey,

Can you clarify how the combat/turns works?
As you have a "defensive" move, does your game resolve the turns of each player at the same time?? (frozen synapse)
Then your resource currency is time (ms?), which works not very differently to sunandshadows suggestion.

I also work on a concept for a turn-based MP and i came to the conclusion to use two fixed actions
per turn, too. Managing multiple units as a team should be as intuitive as possible without the player having
to calculate much.
It also depends on the scale of possibilities for the player. Having only a party of 4 can have a more detailed,
complicated system while if the player has a lot of other stuff to do you should dumb it down a little.

BTW: 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.

Turns are resolved one at a time. However, each unit has a reaction. If a unit is not in range to attack it can "Guard" (like over-watch in XCOM) until a unit moves within range that it can attack. When that happens enemy movement is interrupted and the unit that readied the action can respond (that response is automated).

The focus of my game is both melee and ranged attacks. The melee requirement has made me realize that I need to punish units who flee from melee combat. To this end, I've created a defensive action called "Disengage" that allows you to pull away from someone you are engaged with. It allows you to move away 1 square. You can still move away at your full movement if you don't "disengage" but you risk taking an attack from everyone around you. The other defensive action I have is called "Dodge" it's a passive ability that gives you a bonus to avoid the next attack. Blocking with a shield and parrying with a weapon work the same way. Of course, you can block a missile weapon with your shield, but you can't parry it with your weapon.

So far I've taken sunandshadow's suggestion and I'm currently experimenting with 5 action points per turn. The reason is that most units have at least 2 attack actions per round and they still need to move. Movement costs 1 action point per 2 squares. This means that you can move a total of 6 squares and attack with both weapons, which I think is reasonable. What I really like about this is that if your unit was knocked prone you only have to spend 1 action point to stand back up (a move action) and you can still move a bit more and attack.

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.

While it's boring if everyone stops moving as soon at they reach the enemy, it's also annoying if everyone's moving all the time. IMO the idea would be to have two different strategies, one promoting movement and one restricting movement, and the player would be encouraged to build one or more units to maximize each strategy; sort of like having an agile rogue class vs. a paladin/tank class, and probably a third DPG/glass cannon class who has all distance attacks and avoids letting the enemy get close.

I'm really trying to avoid encoding all the typical combat roles from my game. IMO, roles are passe now. Actually, I'm not even sure I'll be using classes either.

I agree that if everyone is moving all the time it can be annoying. Using squares that are "threatened" might help prevent this. You can move your unit in and attack, but in order to move away after you are engaged you have to spend an action to "disengage". If you don't spend an action you'll be attacked as you move out of range. I've also included the tumble action which allows you to move through threaten squares with a bonus to defense, but if you get hit you are stopped and knocked prone.

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.

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).

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.

PS: i hope i do not appear to be mansplaining, im actually an amateur, too