I've always wanted to make a turn based strategy game. Recently i thought i would give it a go. But today when I sat down to write out some ideas I realized i haven't played many games like this. I've put in many hours with final fantasy tactics, some with the original xcom, final front3 (i think that's what it was called,) and a few Japanese titles.
What makes good games like this stand out from the rest as our favorites?
Personally I like how xcom had larger levels, and how you couldn't see your enemies from a distance.
And building your base was cool.
also i prefer being able to move one character, move another, then go back to the first all in the same turn.
But fft had the setting i like and a level up system i enjoyed.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are. What games did you prefer over others? And what about those games kept you playing.
You all are smarter than me so I'm looking forward to what you have to say
what are your favorite strategy game elements (like fft)
Moderators: Bob the Hamster, marionline, SDHawk
-
BlurredVisionGames
- Slime
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:36 am
- Location: Phoenix
-
BMR
- Metal King Slime
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:46 pm
- Location: The Philippines
- Contact:
Perhaps my favorite turn-based tactical type game was Fallout. Particularly how you weren't just going from level to level with each starting out as a battle. How each battle starts would depend on the real-time gameplay prior to each battle.
I've also always preferred action points over a specific number of moves. For example, in the older XCOM games (if I'm remembering them correctly), different actions had different costs drawn from the same pool as your movement. In the newer XCOM game, you had two actions in a round. You could do either a move and an attack, two moves, or just an attack. Having a pool of action points has the benefit of certain characters being "faster" thereby gaining more moves in a round. Goes the opposite direction too, of course, where "slow" characters can't do all that much. Has the benefit of providing a wider variety of character/unit types.
I've also always preferred action points over a specific number of moves. For example, in the older XCOM games (if I'm remembering them correctly), different actions had different costs drawn from the same pool as your movement. In the newer XCOM game, you had two actions in a round. You could do either a move and an attack, two moves, or just an attack. Having a pool of action points has the benefit of certain characters being "faster" thereby gaining more moves in a round. Goes the opposite direction too, of course, where "slow" characters can't do all that much. Has the benefit of providing a wider variety of character/unit types.
Being from the third world, I reserve the right to speak in the third person.
Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl
Using Editor version wip 20170527 gfx_sdl+fb music_sdl
-
Bob the Hamster
- Lord of the Slimes
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:34 pm
- Location: Hamster Republic (Ontario Enclave)
- Contact:
It is a different kind of tactical game (more chesslike) but I really like Hero Academy.
Two things that set its battle system apart, are:
1) No randomness whatsoever.
2) Your team has 5 action-points. Each move point can be used to move a unit, or to carry out an attack in range. You can spread these action points out over your units however you please. If you have 1 unit on the field, they might move-in, attack 3 times, and move away. If you have 5 units, you might move them all in without attacking.
The effect of having action points allocated this way is you are encouraged to have just the right number of units in play for the situation. Flooding the field with every unit you have is often a bad strategy, because you can only make 5 moves per turn. It also means that when your opponent has whittled your army down to the last few units, your survivors can be a bit more effective, since they get all your action points.
It is a cool system, and I have not personally seen it in any other games
Two things that set its battle system apart, are:
1) No randomness whatsoever.
2) Your team has 5 action-points. Each move point can be used to move a unit, or to carry out an attack in range. You can spread these action points out over your units however you please. If you have 1 unit on the field, they might move-in, attack 3 times, and move away. If you have 5 units, you might move them all in without attacking.
The effect of having action points allocated this way is you are encouraged to have just the right number of units in play for the situation. Flooding the field with every unit you have is often a bad strategy, because you can only make 5 moves per turn. It also means that when your opponent has whittled your army down to the last few units, your survivors can be a bit more effective, since they get all your action points.
It is a cool system, and I have not personally seen it in any other games
I've actually just started playing FFT advance and I'm about 13 hours in. I rather like the game, and one particular thing I've noticed about it is that every move you make is given more importance than in some other games. You have to be very careful about where you move and take care of your positioning or you might get easily flanked, because direction affects hit chance and even though I see the point, sometimes I hate that.
One thing I love about the game is also something that I hate about it, and that is the classes in the game. I like being able to customize any character the way you can, it gives you a lot of control over what your team is best at doing based on your own strategy. This might be difficult when making a game, because when designing enemies, you have to take into consideration that the player could have any kind of team, and if it turns out that having a full team of hybrid black/white mages is OP, then everyone will do it.
The only other tactical RPG I've played is Fire Emblem, which happens to be one of my favorite franchises. One thing you can say about Fire Emblem is that it's much simpler in a lot of respects. You can move any character in any order during your turn, and when you attack, both units have an opportunity to attack if they have the capability, unlike in FFT, where it's just the attacker (unless the other person has a counter). I prefer that style of fighting because it makes you think twice before going and fighting some tough guy, because you could get killed. There's also the "rescue" mechanic, where one character can pick up another, effectively removing them from the map temporarily. Dying in FE is more meaningful, however, because once a character dies, that's it.
Also each character you get is a fully characterized and fleshed out character, and you can't just change their class willy nillilily. Each character gets a class upgrade at level 10, but you can't change what their default is. Given these two options: full class customization and nearly no class customization, I would say the best way would be to give each character a special class tree, so you can change your characters based on playstyle but still limit them so the player can't make a full team of barbarians.
And I guess if you're going to make a story for it, make all of the characters part of that story, rather than just side characters that act as meat puppets. It's more interesting that way.
One thing I love about the game is also something that I hate about it, and that is the classes in the game. I like being able to customize any character the way you can, it gives you a lot of control over what your team is best at doing based on your own strategy. This might be difficult when making a game, because when designing enemies, you have to take into consideration that the player could have any kind of team, and if it turns out that having a full team of hybrid black/white mages is OP, then everyone will do it.
The only other tactical RPG I've played is Fire Emblem, which happens to be one of my favorite franchises. One thing you can say about Fire Emblem is that it's much simpler in a lot of respects. You can move any character in any order during your turn, and when you attack, both units have an opportunity to attack if they have the capability, unlike in FFT, where it's just the attacker (unless the other person has a counter). I prefer that style of fighting because it makes you think twice before going and fighting some tough guy, because you could get killed. There's also the "rescue" mechanic, where one character can pick up another, effectively removing them from the map temporarily. Dying in FE is more meaningful, however, because once a character dies, that's it.
Also each character you get is a fully characterized and fleshed out character, and you can't just change their class willy nillilily. Each character gets a class upgrade at level 10, but you can't change what their default is. Given these two options: full class customization and nearly no class customization, I would say the best way would be to give each character a special class tree, so you can change your characters based on playstyle but still limit them so the player can't make a full team of barbarians.
And I guess if you're going to make a story for it, make all of the characters part of that story, rather than just side characters that act as meat puppets. It's more interesting that way.
Why care about whether or not the players will make a team of barbarians? IF it turns out to be OP, isn't that half the fun of giving them choices? Players still find ways to challenge themselves, look at the FFT community!kylekrack wrote:I've actually just started playing FFT advance and I'm about 13 hours in. I rather like the game, and one particular thing I've noticed about it is that every move you make is given more importance than in some other games. You have to be very careful about where you move and take care of your positioning or you might get easily flanked, because direction affects hit chance and even though I see the point, sometimes I hate that.
One thing I love about the game is also something that I hate about it, and that is the classes in the game. I like being able to customize any character the way you can, it gives you a lot of control over what your team is best at doing based on your own strategy. This might be difficult when making a game, because when designing enemies, you have to take into consideration that the player could have any kind of team, and if it turns out that having a full team of hybrid black/white mages is OP, then everyone will do it.
The only other tactical RPG I've played is Fire Emblem, which happens to be one of my favorite franchises. One thing you can say about Fire Emblem is that it's much simpler in a lot of respects. You can move any character in any order during your turn, and when you attack, both units have an opportunity to attack if they have the capability, unlike in FFT, where it's just the attacker (unless the other person has a counter). I prefer that style of fighting because it makes you think twice before going and fighting some tough guy, because you could get killed. There's also the "rescue" mechanic, where one character can pick up another, effectively removing them from the map temporarily. Dying in FE is more meaningful, however, because once a character dies, that's it.
Also each character you get is a fully characterized and fleshed out character, and you can't just change their class willy nillilily. Each character gets a class upgrade at level 10, but you can't change what their default is. Given these two options: full class customization and nearly no class customization, I would say the best way would be to give each character a special class tree, so you can change your characters based on playstyle but still limit them so the player can't make a full team of barbarians.
And I guess if you're going to make a story for it, make all of the characters part of that story, rather than just side characters that act as meat puppets. It's more interesting that way.
-
Nathan Karr
- Liquid Metal Slime
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:51 am
- Contact:
I've never played FFT, but Final Fantasy Tactics Advance was one I enjoyed for its story and the presentation thereof, as well as its class mechanics (even if the specifics of that were super terribly balanced).
Really the main difference between a regular RPG and a "tactical" RPG is that the former uses abstract distances similar to theater of the mind in tabletop RPG combat, while the latter is more like getting out a map and placing miniatures or tokens on it.'
One thing I've never liked was interchangeable/recruitable characters; it's the unique characters that I care about and prefer to follow a small band of heroes with relationships to each other, rather than a general and his army of disposable cardboard men.
Really the main difference between a regular RPG and a "tactical" RPG is that the former uses abstract distances similar to theater of the mind in tabletop RPG combat, while the latter is more like getting out a map and placing miniatures or tokens on it.'
One thing I've never liked was interchangeable/recruitable characters; it's the unique characters that I care about and prefer to follow a small band of heroes with relationships to each other, rather than a general and his army of disposable cardboard men.
Remeber: God made you special and he loves you very much. Bye!
I suppose I wasn't clear what I meant by that. If a team of barbarians is absolutely gamebreaking then there's no point in calling it a strategy game anymore. Games can have OP things, as long as they're balanced with OP challenges.Gizmog wrote:Why care about whether or not the players will make a team of barbarians? IF it turns out to be OP, isn't that half the fun of giving them choices? Players still find ways to challenge themselves, look at the FFT community!
My pronouns are they/them
Ps. I love my wife
Ps. I love my wife
-
BlurredVisionGames
- Slime
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:36 am
- Location: Phoenix
wow. you guys have helped me out a lot already. thank you!
GIz - I stopped using status magic in that game for just that reason. very frustrating, even looking back all these years later.
Over 8650 loops of a program I wrote today, pulling random numbers 0-99, 1,000,000 times, we have a average spread of 697 from the least picked number and the most picked number. I don't know what that means, but i did it.
Im going to have to write a program to test specific percentages. but I estimate from what i've found so far that we can expect the ohr to give us a percentage within 2-3 points of what we ask for on any given request.
If I use random elements in damage calculation and display them for you, I will make sure they are as acurate as possible.
bob - I really liked looking into that game. I don't think ill play it but it definetly gave me some ideas and inspiration. How ever from what little I saw, I would argue that the characters in your "hand" before you place them on the board are given to you randomly. Maybe i'm wrong, and I know what you meant, but I still consider that a random element. but i could be wrong
bmr - dude you are an artist! love the work you post up here. im checking out fallout tomorrow
kyle - I don't know what to say. Fire emblem is about to take over my life for the next few weeks. thanks. I got the fourth instalment to the series today and am loving it already. I can't read japanese tho. but it hasn't stoped me from playing their games yet
And I agree with your op logic. Of course there will always be one or two setups that allow for an easier time thru the game. And we can all find our own challenges in that game (I beat parasite eve with only the baton weapons, except for the last boss you got to use that special pistol on.)
But your right, the game needs to start off in as much of a balanced state as possible. but we will always have that metaforical "all barbarian team" in some form.
And hit chance and damage based on the direction someone is facing is a good thing, in my opinion. If I get a character around the side of an opponent, I want to be rewarded for my skill. Or if I choose to sacrifice someone by sending them straight in to attack from behind, I should be rewarded for that sacrifice.
nathan - I'm with ya on the replaceable characters. I want to be the main character... I want to be immersed in the game. and that can't happen when I don't have an emotional connection to the characters. If one of them dies, I want to feel it.
So I think we've all agreed that action points are the way to go. I was pretty sure that would happen.
I've thought about maybe giving each character their own AP, then giving the team a collective AP that they can draw from. This will keep all the players in the game And allow for another level of strategy. Maybe that collective pool will be per match and not per turn. ya know?, do you use that extra AP to retreat someone that got in a bad spot or save it till the last moment to end the match quickly?
I don't know guys. It's just ideas at this point. All I know is this game of mine will happen
Ive got a lot of research to do. and a lot of new games to play. thanks everyone. and keep those thoughts coming if you have more.
GIz - I stopped using status magic in that game for just that reason. very frustrating, even looking back all these years later.
Over 8650 loops of a program I wrote today, pulling random numbers 0-99, 1,000,000 times, we have a average spread of 697 from the least picked number and the most picked number. I don't know what that means, but i did it.
Im going to have to write a program to test specific percentages. but I estimate from what i've found so far that we can expect the ohr to give us a percentage within 2-3 points of what we ask for on any given request.
If I use random elements in damage calculation and display them for you, I will make sure they are as acurate as possible.
bob - I really liked looking into that game. I don't think ill play it but it definetly gave me some ideas and inspiration. How ever from what little I saw, I would argue that the characters in your "hand" before you place them on the board are given to you randomly. Maybe i'm wrong, and I know what you meant, but I still consider that a random element. but i could be wrong
bmr - dude you are an artist! love the work you post up here. im checking out fallout tomorrow
kyle - I don't know what to say. Fire emblem is about to take over my life for the next few weeks. thanks. I got the fourth instalment to the series today and am loving it already. I can't read japanese tho. but it hasn't stoped me from playing their games yet
And I agree with your op logic. Of course there will always be one or two setups that allow for an easier time thru the game. And we can all find our own challenges in that game (I beat parasite eve with only the baton weapons, except for the last boss you got to use that special pistol on.)
But your right, the game needs to start off in as much of a balanced state as possible. but we will always have that metaforical "all barbarian team" in some form.
And hit chance and damage based on the direction someone is facing is a good thing, in my opinion. If I get a character around the side of an opponent, I want to be rewarded for my skill. Or if I choose to sacrifice someone by sending them straight in to attack from behind, I should be rewarded for that sacrifice.
nathan - I'm with ya on the replaceable characters. I want to be the main character... I want to be immersed in the game. and that can't happen when I don't have an emotional connection to the characters. If one of them dies, I want to feel it.
So I think we've all agreed that action points are the way to go. I was pretty sure that would happen.
I've thought about maybe giving each character their own AP, then giving the team a collective AP that they can draw from. This will keep all the players in the game And allow for another level of strategy. Maybe that collective pool will be per match and not per turn. ya know?, do you use that extra AP to retreat someone that got in a bad spot or save it till the last moment to end the match quickly?
I don't know guys. It's just ideas at this point. All I know is this game of mine will happen
Ive got a lot of research to do. and a lot of new games to play. thanks everyone. and keep those thoughts coming if you have more.
Last edited by BlurredVisionGames on Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bob the Hamster
- Lord of the Slimes
- Posts: 7660
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:34 pm
- Location: Hamster Republic (Ontario Enclave)
- Contact:
My favorite FE game is the second installment on the GBA. It's in English and is kind of a milestone in the mechanics of the series.
EDIT: I think it's called the sacred stones.
EDIT: I think it's called the sacred stones.
Last edited by kylekrack on Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My pronouns are they/them
Ps. I love my wife
Ps. I love my wife
-
mangotronics
- Slime
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:50 am
Shining Force is probably my favorite RPG, and being similar (if not a SEGA version) of Fire Emblem, it has a few things I didn't like - the annoying Sleep status effect is one, I felt that it just slowed down the game.
I also liked the Fire Emblem style of movement where you don't have to wait for a certain character's turn to come up based on their speed (though I suppose that it's a little more technical when you base it on individual speed).
Anyway, getting to the point - the friendship system in both FE and SF series was my favorite aspect of both these games.
I also liked the Fire Emblem style of movement where you don't have to wait for a certain character's turn to come up based on their speed (though I suppose that it's a little more technical when you base it on individual speed).
Anyway, getting to the point - the friendship system in both FE and SF series was my favorite aspect of both these games.