But why have combat turnbased at all?

The reason to have X-com, Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics to be turn based was to allow the player to control multiple combatants and to give them very detailed orders.

From all I''ve read in this thread it seems like the gameplay is geared towards just one player character and not a team.

Combat radius would be hard in squad based combat. Since potentially you have (for a fantasy setting) a soldier going close combat, an archer sniping from a distance and a wizard shooting fireballs with area effect at the monster...

just my two cents...

::aggression is the result of fear::

like I said, I need turnbased to prevent lag.

I considered these very long range weapons too (archer and wizard).

That will be handled by allowing to attack at a distance and entering turn mode once the attak is made. Instead of breaking off combat at 30 squares, I break it off at maximum weapon range + 10 with a minumum of 30 or so.

Also, I am thinking of making the enter-turnbased radius larger, but only entering turnbased when commming into the range of the monster and not when comming into range of another player.

I reckon this should solve these problems.

Do not meddle in the affairs of moderators, for they are subtle and quick to anger. ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Cool Links :: [ GD | TG | MS | NeHe | PA | SA | M&S | TA | LiT | H*R ]
Got Clue? :: [ Start Here! | Google | MSDN | GameDev.net Reference | OGL v D3D | File Formats | Go FAQ yourself ]

Gotcha...

Also you mentioned above that you''ll have some sort of PvP. It seems that a PvP archer/wizard might be really powerful. When other people are locked in turn based combat, they can maneuver to the correct distance with good protection/cover in realtime and when ready join the fray. PvP players are usually notoriously good at exploiting game rules... that would need some thinking.

How advanced are you planning to have the actual combat, will there be a lot of decisions for a player in combat or is it pretty straightforward (swing, move, swing, swing...)?

::aggression is the result of fear::

Turn based posibilities:

Movement
Changing Equipment
Attack (method 1) // weapons can have several methods
Attack (method 2)
Attack (method ...)
Cast Spell
Surrender, etc

Along those lines.

I am considering adding called shots.

This one actualy hasn''t been set in stone yet.


Back on PvP:

I am having second thoughts about PvP. It dosn''t really fit the story line anyway...

You make a good point with the range problem. I am still thinking about a good way to fix that.

If you have the AD&D book "Dungeon Master Options: High Level Campaigns", it talks about magical duels. Perhaps something like that to replace PvP (only make it so it wasn''t restriced to spellcasters). There could be diffrent conditions and reward for the winner/punishment for the looser imposed on each duel, things like the transfer of Coolness points (if you saw the post about them) or other points or anteing up items, or causing of real damage, etc. This could also be a good way to do training (which has already been designed - people can train each other in diffrent skills)

I reckon I could make the game just as good without PvP or with a PvP replacement.

Peh, silly PvP.

Do not meddle in the affairs of moderators, for they are subtle and quick to anger. ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Cool Links :: [ GD | TG | MS | NeHe | PA | SA | M&S | TA | LiT | H*R ]
Got Clue? :: [ Start Here! | Google | MSDN | GameDev.net Reference | OGL v D3D | File Formats | Go FAQ yourself ]

Not being a programmer myself (pure game designer) I dont understand completely why turnbased would reduce lag in combat situations. To reduce network trafic and only send combat data to battling clients?

But perhaps you could have hidden turns. Fallout Tactics in realtime mode is almost as turnbased. You can move around and stuff but shooting and performing actions costs action points and you regenerate action points over time...

I''ve never seen a realtime system work together with a turnbased in multiplayer without strange forced gameplay features. =/ I guess you should decide how important PVP combat is for your game or if you can limit it to certain arenas...


::aggression is the result of fear::

I have made the decision to limit PvP to an arena or two.

when entering the arena, players designate if physical damage is to ocure, if it is a fight to the death (or ends at 1hp), if they would like to ante up money or items, etc. Perhaps also the anteing of skill points or spell knowledge?

This can also be used for training. People watching the fight will (slowly) learn skills while people in the battle will also pick up skills from each other.


As far as lag goes, the network connections will not be perfect. In version 1 of this game (which has crude real time fighting), it has been the case that a connection would drop out for a few seconds and the enemy would continue to kick ass while the player is helpless and waisting valuable time while their weapon is readied.

This new method would be much more fair and accurate.


On action points, each player will have a very limited number of "actions points" each turn, but each turn would occure quickly. Your basic player (with no multipul attack bonuses) would be allowed one attack or spell or whatever for each turn. Some attacks might require a recovery to take up the next turn or spell that take more than one turn to cast.

As I said before, while it will be turn based, each player will not take "turns". Everyone declares their action and they all happen at once. There will be a system to work out who is faster, if A attacks B and B choses to retreat, both actions will happen, but if A''s attack hits depends on who is faster.

Do not meddle in the affairs of moderators, for they are subtle and quick to anger. ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Cool Links :: [ GD | TG | MS | NeHe | PA | SA | M&S | TA | LiT | H*R ]
Got Clue? :: [ Start Here! | Google | MSDN | GameDev.net Reference | OGL v D3D | File Formats | Go FAQ yourself ]

If it''s going to be multiplayer, then what if some ignorant little kid decides that during his turn, he''s going to go to school, making all of the other people have to sit there and wait while Johnny420 is in his turn. Have you thought of that yet?

turns will have a timeout (of 20 seconds or so - perhaps 20 seconds Plus lag*2 or something). Plus everyone decides their actions at the same time.