This is the second of my game ideas (the other is Alien planet) which Im hoping to get some feedback on. I would like to know if people like, or dislike, any elements of this game idea and whether or not they would play the game. The basic idea to the game is that the player controls a team of mercenaries. The team must be managed, including hiring and firing of team members, as well as sending them off to be trained to improve their abilities. Their initial equipment will be set on hiring them, but after that, equipping the squad (including buying and selling the equipment) will be up to the player. The game will take place in a near future setting so cybernetically enhancing team members is possible. The player will play the team management part in real time, having the option to control the rate of time (minutes, hours, days) and will keep an eye on the job board. The job board will contain randomly generated missions from various factions within this dystopian future... people needing things done. Dodgy things. Such as hiring people to commit theft, assasination, wiping a rival gang out or as body guards. The missions themselves will be played out as isometric turn based strategy using a 3d engine to render the battlescape. The battlescape itself will be randomly generated so no two layouts are ever the same. Team members will advance in abilities during missions as they do things, similar to an rpg, such as surviving an injury will lead to higher health in future. The game will be won when a certain mission is accepted, and completed, that will only appear once the player has completed 90% of the game, in terms of what can be achieved.

Sounds like it would do better as a Tactical Shooter & not turn based.

You mean, make it a rts game?

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Sounds like it would do better as a Tactical Shooter & not turn based.

Please don't do this. We don't need any more shooters.

I love the idea. It sounds a lot like X-Com or Jagged Alliance, both of which are fantastic. One aspect of gameplay that you should consider implementing is the way in which Laser Squad Nemesis or the Combat Mission war games handle your orders. Every turn, each player/AI sets destinations/targets and some behavior flags (hold fire, fire at will, etc.) for each of their units/squaddies. When everyone is finished planning their moves, all units move/shoot simultaneously, like a real-time game. When a few seconds pass, the game "pauses" again and each player gives new orders.

This setup gives you the tactics and tension of a turn-based strategy game AND the thrill of watching controlled chaos erupt on the battlefield.

- Mike

I am with doctorsixstring on the turn system. Turn-based games distort time just enough that you can wish you could move and shoot at the same time. Shooters have clunky squad controls, so you wish you could get your squaddies to do the right thing.

Being able to issue all the orders at once and then have ten seconds of action play out in real-time is just the solution to this problem. Fields of fire, zones of cover and overwatch tactics all fall apart in turn-based scenarios, and I think this sort of "pause" gameplay will really facilitate the sort of gameplay you seem to be going for.

Interesting, so standard turn based gaming really is out.

What about real time gaming, with a pause feature to give out orders and the ability to slow time down? Is order phase, move/fire phase a superior system?

So basically something like

UFO:Enemy Unknown

or

Syndicate

Then?

Sounds a lot like UFO. Mind you, UFO is a stunningly good game. This mix of resource-management and turn-based tactics is really good.

Mark

PS: (Yorkshire accent) ooh, when I were a lad, they used t' make proper games, nun of this modern rubbish.

Quote:

Original post by kingy Interesting, so standard turn based gaming really is out.

Not necessarily - I still play X-Com from time to time. But the "new-style" turn-based is probably better for the kind of games that we are talking about.

Quote:

Original post by kingy What about real time gaming, with a pause feature to give out orders and the ability to slow time down? Is order phase, move/fire phase a superior system?

The main problem that I see with an optional pause feature is that some players might get annoyed when their opponent frequently pauses the action. This would be especially bad if you mix a hyper-active RTS fan* with a slow-paced, thoughtful TBS player. Designing your game around mandatory pausing of the action would let everyone know what to expect.

- Mike

* No offense to all the hyper-active RTS fans out there.

Yes I agree, real time with a pause is really a single player game decision. Its not ever going to work with a multiplayer game.

Theres another game type I havent brought up yet but I first came across it in the Civ games - simultaneous turn based mode. This is where both players play their turn at the same time, and the turn doesnt end until both players hit end turn. Its quite interesting in that you can really muck up someones plans by getting your units in position first.

Quote:

Original post by kingy ...simultaneous turn based mode...

Age of Wonders (very fun fantasy TBS) allowed you to play like this, as well. It worked pretty well, since it eliminated the downtime between each individual player's turns. The only problem is that it can induce some frenzied clicking as the player tries to move his units before another player beats him to it. Of course, some people might like that.