Hi

Im doing a game with turnbased combat similar to old xcom, jagged alliance or fallout tactics (you move your 4-8 soldiers around and spend timeunits on moving, shooting, using items etc)

So how about cover? The new xcom was completely based on it (always stay in cover and shoot over it). Not sure i liked it always. My graphics is simple, true top down (helicopter view, not isometric).

But if there is no "cover mechanics", you will often want to walk out from a corner, shoot, then walk back into safety of the wall. Also not optimal (fun) gameplay.

The only thing i have right now is you can shoot over some low objects like crates if they are close, but when shot upon 40 % (or whatever) of bullets will hit the crate before reaching you. Primitive but might be enough?

Very broad question i know, but what is your ideas about the subject?

I have a hard time envisioning a "tactical" system that doesn't incorporate the idea of cover, some how. It's kind of a big deal when people are shooting at you.

How it's handled, though, can have a massive effect on gameplay. Xcom opted for a faster, more free-ranging style of turn-based play than a lot of systems because they wanted to appeal to a larger crowd. You could run across large swathes of area with an enemy in plain site without getting shot at, due to the low number of unis around (and their predictable setup, but that's another issue).

Cover is best handled in concert with other topics, such as suppression. Furthermore, I'd discourage there being a straight up percentage chance to hit somebody in decent cover. That always drives me crazy. If they are shooting from an angle, sure, get some chance in there, but hard cover should completely protect from at least one direction, because it increases tactical depth when you absolutely MUST flank an enemy rather than just throwing enough bullets at them that something is sure to get through. It also makes the use of ballistic trajectory weapons (grenades, mortars) more tactically focused than just "I want to hit lots of guys hard."

Finally, overwatch/interrupts are a must have. A guy taking a ton of fire on his position (but safe for the moment due to afore-mentioned hard cover rule) should have a very low chance of survival if he just up and runs. He needs allies to come along and provide covering fire, thereby suppressing the enemy, which gives him a chance to move.

All in all, the newer Xcom was pretty good, but it handled all tactics in a very arcade style, playing fast and loose with some very nuanced issues. It grated on me now and then.

Hi

Well i have walls, which cover 100% (like a corner of a building).

Low cover absorbs 40% of the bullets that physically must travel "over" the low cover to hit you. If you fire from the side the low cover gives nothing

Seems legit?

Looks good, do you have (low damage-) weapons to ignore cover ? (like grenades)

yeah grenades/launchers to do area damage and remove some cover objects (like wooden crates)

If your setting allows it you can make the range of weapons an issue.
That would decrease the necessity of cover depending on the enemies setup.
It also provides more variety to play styles as players can go high risk high reward or play it safe from far away.

A unit can have its own cover (to a specific direction), for example a tank or riot shield guy.

Players would need to take into account facing direction and action cost for maneuvers.
Expanding from that idea you can have certain units which provide cover or defensive bonuses to teammates.
This would be for example some kind of energy shield in various shapes and colours.

It would also increase the synergy between the team members.

The alternative to cover would be having some kind of unit who just can take a lot of damage.

If your units are puny humans that probably is scifi/fantasy material, though.