gambrinous

Members
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

145 Neutral

About gambrinous

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Games workshop released a couple of games featuring space combat & manouvres of this kind (spaceships had turning arcs / acceleration & deceleration limits / firing arcs). Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefleet_Gothic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fleet
  2. Without fog of war you take away the strategic guessing game of 'what are they up to now?', and remove some great sneaky moves that can only be pulled off WITH it, such as diversionary attacks on one side of the map with a few units, followed a couple turns later by a massive attack from the other side (both coming out of the fog of war) Because of this, once a player gets the upper hand in a game without fog there's basically no way for the losing player to win (but generally they have to play on). I think weewar (www.weewar.com) has this problem entirely due to a lack of fog of war.
  3. Flash is a decent medium to build in as you get a massive install base of possible players. If you want to make flash games I'd recommend using Flex which lets you write only code (rather than mucking around with point n click in Flash) and compiles to Flash movies. This is what we're using and I wrote a blog post about it here: http://blog.gambrinous.com/2008/12/28/flash-development-with-flex/ By the way your phase 4 won't be easy as there's no way for Flash to get to xbox or iphone as is; you'd need a full port to a new language for each of those. As for the game you are thinking of, it's very workable and could end up very good, but since it's your first project and there's only you (working in your spare time), I would recommend you shelve that idea til later and instead make something much, much smaller - that will help you learn everything you need to make the game you outlined later on. Example: make a very simplistic chess game in flash where you can take turns on the same computer to play. - rules are already made for you - uses a grid (squares vs hexagons isn't that hard to switch between once you really understand how to build one or the other) - is a game with more than one player, so you need to do all the usual game bits like state, turns, end conditions etc etc - doesn't need fancy graphics Do that and then go back to your original idea. Good luck!
  4. Turn-based tactics: a battle system

    Thanks for the feedback. I had a look at Pox Nora since it's the only one mentioned I hadn't played before; it's got a pretty good battle system- based on action points & lots of skills. Edtharan, yeah I'm not totally happy with how spears work right now. Once we have our prototype finished we'll be able to play around with different settings, maybe a 2square reach as you suggest for pikes would be good. Thanks again!
  5. We're building a fairly simple game featuring turn-based battles with fantasy units. This is the skeleton of the battle system I've devised - I'd love any feedback or comments anyone has to help me improve it. ** Overview ** The game is a turn-based tactics game where you start with a small warband of rookie units, then fight battles with them. Doing well in battles can improve your units (xp -> levels), and give you money to expand your warband or improve the equipment of your existing units. It will be a single player game. ** Battles ** Battles take place on fairly small square-based maps (top-down), probably under 20x20 tiles. Your warband will start with about 3-5 members and probably max out around 10, so battles shouldn't be massively long affairs. You win by eliminating the enemy. ** Battle System Goals ** 1. Be simple & easy to understand at first 2. But have emergent complexity 3. Have an element of chance, but not be ruled by it 4. Be fun to play through each battle (tactical choices + challenge) 5. Be rewarding to build up your warband over time (strategic choices) ** Units ** Each unit is a fantasy-themed warrior with the following stats: - Speed: squares moved per turn (avg 5) - Health: Damage taken before being removed from battle (avg 20) - Strength: Ability with melee weapons (avg 5) - Agility: Ability with ranged weapons (avg 5) - Armor: Depends on equipment Units can also have skills though most will start as rookies with no skills. Skills will give new abilities and are the main vehicle for 'emergent complexity' where combinations of skills will yield new & interesting tactics. Units' battle power will largely depend on their equipment, particularly as rookies. This can be upgraded between battles. Units will be of a certain type/class that will dictate their skill choices (eg infantry / archer / scout / cavalry). ** Attacks ** Each turn a unit can move and then attack. Range of melee weapons is adjacent; for ranged weapons it is adjacent + diagonally. When you move into a square next to an enemy (their 'zone of control') your move ends (though you can still attack them), meaning you can't run through to target the weaker/wounded enemy at the back. When you make a melee attack you add your strength to the strength of your weapon and roll a 1d10: 1-2: miss 3-9: hit 10: critical hit If you hit you add the roll value (3-10) to your attack strength to get a damage total. The target's armour value is then subtracted from this to get the actual damage sustained. A critical hit means the target's armour value is halved for this attack. Also some weapon types have some special rules, explained below. Ranged weapons work the same way except you add your agility to the weapon strength, and the enemy can only counter-attack if they are also using a ranged weapon. ** Counter-Attacks ** If a unit survives an attack they immediately attack the unit that attacked them, using all the normal attack rules. Each unit can only make one counter attack per turn, no matter how many times they are attacked that turn. A unit with only a melee weapon cannot counterattack when attacked by a ranged weapon. A unit with a ranged weapon attacked by a melee unit counterattacks with their knife rather than their ranged weapon. ** Equipment ** All equipment is of a certain type with basic rules governing it; within each type there are actual items of varying cost & power (eg of type sword: short sword, long sword, fine broadsword, etc) Armour Types: None: +0 to armour; no penalties. Leather: +1-3 armour; no penalties. Chain: +4-6 armour; slight penalty to speed and medium penalty to agility Plate: +7-10 armour; medium penalty to speed and high penalty to agility Shield: +1-4 bonus to armour; bonus doubled vs 1st attack sustained each turn (shield block) Weapon Types: Knife: free for all units (eg ranged units), allows basic melee attack with +0 strength Sword: versatile melee weapon; +strength based on quality of sword (eg short sword: +1, long sword: +2, etc); allows 'parry' which adds strength to armour vs 1st attack sustained each turn (vs melee only) Axe: offensive melee weapon; +strength based on quality but higher than comparable swords (double?); bonus vs shields (bonus halved?) Spear: defensive melee weapon; +strength based on quality, similar power as comparable swords; bonus to +strength when counter-attacking; allows 'first-strike' when attacked which lets you deliver your counter-attack before the enemy makes their attack 2-handed sword/axe: same special rule as 1-handed version but higher strength (eg +4); can't use shield Bow: Ranged attack (uses agility; can attack diagonally; melee units can't counterattack); can't use shield ** Thoughts ** The main goal here is allowing a fairly complex 'emergent' set of tactics from a simple enough system. Things that allow this are the choices of weapon types; positioning during battles being important (ganging up is best, but difficult due to zones of control). Your first battle would feature pretty much all of the above. Later you would add some more complexity with the 'skills' units gain as they level up. For example a scout type of unit could choose 'Evade' which lets them ignore the first zone of control they walk into each turn, and so on. Thanks for reading!
  6. I believe if you are going for a tactical turn-based game, 1v1, on a small map, then there should be no in-battle unit production. I think it just takes away from the tactics aspect- I much prefer to focus just on tactics during this kind of battle. As others have said it makes great sense to still have the strategic aspect of army building, but just have it separated- before matches start. This is pretty much what we're going for with our first game.
  7. Whats the best turn based strategy game ever?

    My vote goes to XCOM/UFO and Fantasy General
  8. Just wanted to hand out a big thumbs up. Like this a lot & look forward to future ones!
  9. Do single player RPG's make much money?

    Quote:Original post by Yvanhoe SpiderWeb's CEO posts a lot of informations on his blog about how he sets his pricing and how much he has to sell before becoming profitable : http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2009/03/so-heres-how-many-games-i-sell.html He is doing single-player RPGs for a living. You should check it out. Yep, that's a really good article - here's the second part. They've been making excellent old-school single-player RPGs since the early 90s.
  10. Adding player skill to melee fights

    Make sure you play Mount & Blade to see how they did it: it has one of the most playable skill based melee systems i've ever experienced. You can see it in action in the starting town by doing some tourneys. They have streamlined things slightly (blocking for example) - but it _works_ It is intensely fun & satisfying while still remaining skill based. Mounted combat in particular.
  11. I quite like how some games (eg Fantasy General or Wesnoth) abstract away ranged weapons, instead giving them the advantage that units without their own ranged attack can't strike back when attacked by a ranged unit. You still need to be adjacent to attack though.
  12. Feedback on a game concept

    I like the concept a lot, it actually sounds like the excellent classic game Chaos, with the twist of delayed spells. I don't think you should have delayed spells be totally invisible or the whole thing turns into randomness; I'd take making them totally predictable over totally invisble any day (better for strategy). I like the above idea about slowly making them more obvious too. How about having the option to 'lie' about one thing in each spell (spell being cast, target hex, turns til it goes off). Adds some strategic bluffing to the mix which is excellent in multiplayer games (see the illusions in Chaos).
  13. Skill based RPGs

    Oblivion?
  14. You know you're a crappy programmer when...

    Enough with the GIMP religious debates! You know you're a crappy programmer when... .. you don't use version control software. Bonus crapoints if you don't even know what that is. It's actually an amazingly good indicator of crappy programmers :P
  15. Some great points raised here. We're also working on a small turn based tactics game and a lot of this is spot on with what I think about the subject. I think you're right to focus on small; not just because you want a small project but also to deliver a better game. Less units/weapons means they can be very different from each other, and done well can lead to the holy grail for TBS: 'simple rules but deep tactics'. Oh and check out Fantasy General (with dosbox to emulate it works perfectly), another great turn-based game.