Hi

Im doing a turnbased tactical game like xcom, silent storm, fallout tactics etc (and using time units for that old school feeling!).

The setting is modern urban with real life guns. Gangs, militia, cops in a partially collapsed world.

Im thinking to divide soldiers into classes to have a more distinct feel to them. You will choose the class as a soldier gains the first level and classes will partly overlap when it comes to abilities and guns but still i will try to make them feel distinct.

Pros and cons of this? I feel the latest xcom was a bit boring becouse i couldn't choose what type of soldier to develop and choices without each class was very limited. But the old xcom was to open and often made you produce the same (the best) soldier configuration across the board.

My plan is: (plz also comment on names)

Recruits and everyone else can use pistols, machine pistols and revolvers

1. close combat/ assault (shotgun/smg, extra toughness)

2. rifleman (assault rifles/carbines, mid range soldier)

3. marksman (sniper rifles, battle rifles (like garand, m14), low toughness, extra aim)

4. Support gunner (LMG, launchers, can carry more equipment)

5. Medic (smg, can heal good, low toughness)

This setup is in a way pretty standard, but what do you think? In a way assault class is a confusing name if assault rifles is used by another class. What would more "street" names of such classes be?

Erik

I'm playing Planetside 2 lately, although a very different type of game, I like how they've ordered up the classes:

1 - Light Assault - Extremely mobile (they actually have a jetpack) packing light but precise firepower. Good at close range mostly.

2 - Heavy Assault - Armored and high firepower. Goes either close or mid range.

3 - Infiltrator - Squishy, but hard to spot, gets to hack through stuff or use sniper rifles. Definitely long range, or up close knifing because of stealth.

4 - Engineer - Support, which packs a lot of ammos, stationary chainguns they can deploy, etc. It's actually one of the best (can even repair stuff).

5 - Medic - Support, heals allies, but also has interesting weapons, much akin to Light Assault and Engineer.

They actually have some weapons as crossover, but the real fun comes from picking the setup for each. I have 3 loadouts on all of them, and each has a very distinct strategy.

So, for example, you could get:

2 - Heavy Assault.

2.1 - Close Combat Heavy Assault (using a minigun and total armor)

2.2 - Suppression Fire (has a lot of ammos, a somewhat accurate midrange auto rifle, good for cover fire, urban combat, denying enemy positions and movement). Also good with more grenades and the likes. A good zone-controller overall.

2.3 - Mid-ranged hunter (has a very accurate gun, less ammos, less armor). Very deadly outdoors to outdoors (bridges, etc) or when assaulting a location from the outside.

etc.

Hopefully this applies.

Yeah i tried planetside 2 but as you say that is more fps classes. I need "strategy-game" classes which works a bit differently. Any other game that i should look into (other then xcom).

Or your comments on classes vs no-classes in tactical squad-based games in general.

Name suggestions.

1. close combat/ assault (shotgun/smg, extra toughness)

Butcher, Rumbler, Brawler, Psycho?

2. rifleman (assault rifles/carbines, mid range soldier)

Grunt, Jarhead, Trooper?

3. marksman (sniper rifles, battle rifles (like garand, m14), low toughness, extra aim)

Deadeye, Sharpshooter, Assassin, Hitman ... or more randomly Potshot, Skinny?

4. Support gunner (LMG, launchers, can carry more equipment)

Heavy, Tough, Meatshield, Brute, Bruiser?

5. Medic (smg, can heal good, low toughness)

Doc, Sawbones, Stitches/Patch?

Also you may want to look at the Jagged Alliance games if you haven't.

An older thread that sought similar information

Army professions

Thanks guys.

Any comments on weather on not you like having classes or going fully class-less in such games? Total freedom to edit units or some (loosely) defined boxes for added distinction?

In (the new) xcom i did like that not all guys could do everything and i needed to take that into consideration, but it was to little configuration available.

Either/Or really. I'd say it depends on how many soldiers your managing. With a large number a class system would be quicker and less fiddly as you wont have to choose all the skill paths of each one, but if you its just a small elite team, heavy customization would work and could give players an extra sense of investment in their squad as they customize each member to their taste.

Or maybe both? you can customize each skill on a soldier, or you can assign them a class so you don't have to bother fiddling with that stuff and let it be handled automaticly if you choose?

I liked Wages of War and Fallout Tactics a lot, and they didn't employ classes, so I'm not sure.

Personally I'm a fan of a general base class, and then tacking on a limited number of specializations onto the initial class.

Base class would be your core bog standard rifleman, and all your main stats and abilities. (Basic weapons skills all start at a decent level, everyone can fight competently with the standard pistol and rifle. Introduction skills to things like support weapons, machine guns, rocket launcher, simple explosives. Everyone knows how to fire them and aim in the general direction of their target, but they would be less effective without additional training)

On top of your base class you would add specializations in different fields, depending on what elements you want in your game.

As a player you then choose to invest further training in either core stats to improve a general unit, or you add a handful of specializations onto your soldiers. Depending on exactly what you want your game play to be like it isn't unreasonable to expect all units to pick up at least one class of specialization training above and beyond your standard infantry core skill set. Things like advanced explosives and demolitions, marksmanship, Squad Support Weapons to improve their ability with machine guns, rockets/recoilless rifles, etc.

As long as it is clear to me what units have which special trainings, then I should be able to easily pick who I need for which tasks. And ideally no mission should ever absolutely require a given high level specialization to complete. Game design around options is always nice. Do I take the guard towers out with a pair of snipers? Or do I pop smoke, rushing across the open space with elite infantry, or maybe I bring the towers down with shoulder fired rockets? Maybe I take both guards out with a pair of stealth hand to hand infiltrators. Each option has pros and cons, risks and rewards.