6 minutes ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

One important distinction to make is between being complex and being opaque. Your game can be mechanically simple and still provide complex strategies to reach victory. Simply having complex mechanics does not prevent the existence of only one or two viable playing options (rendering the whole thing meaningless).

I was just about to mention this, but from a different direction. Having a lot of options with action points will not only introduce complexity to the player, it will also give additional complexity for you. You'll need to balance the range of actions and possible costs up very carefully, to ensure that the opportunity costs involved in each will sum correctly.

On the other hand...

11 minutes ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

I agree with SomeoneRichards here that it is not laziness really. In both in pen & paper and video games, I believe, there has been a shift away from certain forms of complexity. The problem with that was that, in the most egregious cases, you'd be kept away from the game in order to search something in a manual to understand what 1 out of dozens of small stats actually mean in terms of game. With more streamlined modern games, you can focus more on the gaming aspect of your game

...and I feel dirty for saying this, but if your game is lacking somewhere else (aesthetics, depth, etc) forcing your players to focus on the intricacies of this system might be a handy distraction...

To be honest, I think your best bet at the moment would be to forget about the specific implication details, and think about the scope of applicable actions. Make a list of the kinds of actions that your player's characters will be able to perform, and try to identify the most likely combinations. You might find that look at the range of actions tells you everything that you need to know.

The AP system will feel more like a simulation/management game, the 2-action system feels more like a tactical game.

The AP system will let you add details like aim carefully, snap shot etc. It requires more planning for the player and slows down the rounds. The 2-action system is easier for designing distinct choices for the player: do I choose this or this; both cost 1 action. It's easier to overview the options you have.

I came from old xcom and fallout tactics. I first hated the "simplified" system in the new xcoms. But pretty soon I realised it was pretty clever, and actually made me think more about tactical decisions and less about obvious shores.

If you go for the old-school system, I strongly advice against details that the player need to do anyway, like standing up, sitting down, moving items in the inventory. These are shores and needed anyway so there is no added tactical decision for the player. If you remove all that, what do the old-school system actually add that you cannot have in the modern system?

I made a hybrid system but never completed that game. It used 3 points for each turn. Snap shot was 1P, aimed shot 2P. And you could also move some distance (based on soldier agility) per P. Quicker reloads (like pistols) were 1P and larger rifles took 2P. Also, you were not ending your round by shooting.

And noone wants to count AP to be able to know what the soldier can do later, or move a distance to find out you only have 11ap left but you needed 12 to shoot so you're screwed. You dont want the player to focus on that but (again) on the tactical decisions such as: where to go, what to risk, do I fall back or advance, do I shoot or use a grenade.

Richards what i meant when I sad phase combat, it seemed to me like this is the part were you move, or shoot, etc. But I see now that my poor choice of words caused confusion. 

In my game I want the player to be able to perform a wide variety of actions, like shooting, aiming at specific part of the body, blind fire, lean and fire, roll, etc. Your idea looks amazing, but now I wonder how to implement it to work with stats. So, my stats are based on JA 2 and Fallout, so you get Strength, Agility, Wisdom, etc. One of my main concerns during the design was how to implement these traits.

If anybody remembers, in old games each stat did something, and agility gave action points (in most games, it contributed one way or the other), so maybe if I go with your idea, higher agility for instance would give more range or time to perform same action, right.

For instance in Jagged Alliance 1 and 2, each mercenary had different action points, based on their stats, with maximum I think was 25. The player was forced to choose the best available person for a specific job. So, how would stats (mainly agility stat) work into all of this? I can't remember did the new XCOM had stats like agility, or time units and how did it work with one-two system. If someone can remind me or explain, that would be great. So far in my project, I'm currently doing AI, and did a simple AP system, but I started having doubts about the system which brings us here. 

17 minutes ago, Noddy92 said:

Richards what i meant when I sad phase combat, it seemed to me like this is the part were you move, or shoot, etc. But I see now that my poor choice of words caused confusion. 

In my game I want the player to be able to perform a wide variety of actions, like shooting, aiming at specific part of the body, blind fire, lean and fire, roll, etc. Your idea looks amazing, but now I wonder how to implement it to work with stats. So, my stats are based on JA 2 and Fallout, so you get Strength, Agility, Wisdom, etc. One of my main concerns during the design was how to implement these traits.

If anybody remembers, in old games each stat did something, and agility gave action points (in most games, it contributed one way or the other), so maybe if I go with your idea, higher agility for instance would give more range or time to perform same action, right.

For instance in Jagged Alliance 1 and 2, each mercenary had different action points, based on their stats, with maximum I think was 25. The player was forced to choose the best available person for a specific job. So, how would stats (mainly agility stat) work into all of this? I can't remember did the new XCOM had stats like agility, or time units and how did it work with one-two system. If someone can remind me or explain, that would be great. So far in my project, I'm currently doing AI, and did a simple AP system, but I started having doubts about the system which brings us here. 

You should be very careful when considering stats and their role. It can be very tempting to create a bunch of stats and try to find things for them to do, but it is much better to work out what you need to do first, and then decide if you require a new stat for that. Otherwise you end up with things like the luck stat in Fallout which was primary there to allow the developers to spell SPECIAL, and had to be fit into something.

Stats generally control one of three things, the chance of doing something (ie accuracy for your shots), the ability to do something (you need a minimum strength to carry a certain item), or the amount of something you can do (high speeds means you can travel further with a single move action).

Stats also tend to function in pairs, with common ones being accuracy (chance to hit) vs dodge (chance to not be hit), damage (chance to hurt) vs toughness (chance to avoid being hurt) and so on.

From a quick look at what your after you can easily identify a few areas that will need some kind of metric:

Whether an attack hits at range (so, an accuracy stat)

Whether an attack hits in melee (so, the same accuracy stat, or some kind of strength stat)

Whether a defender can avoid being hit / How effective cover use is (so, some dodge stat)

How far a character can move (so, some mobility/speed stat)

How much a character can carry (so, some encumbrance stat)

Where possible, you can group similar abilities together, so an agility stat could cover movement and dodginess, or they can be separate.

You should also strive to balance stats (which can be difficult), so each has one, two or three equal roles. You want to avoid any potential god-stat or dump-stat.

Another important consideration is whether stats can be changed, or if a character is stuck with them, and if you plan to have other items that can make up for or replace your stats. Is it worth me investing in a defence stat if I can get heavy armour later? On the other hand, because I know I can get heavy armour later on, I can focus on a different area for my character, like accuracy.

Again, the best approach is to list out possible actions, see where you can pair and streamline them, and then let that list guide your decisions around stats.

This is really great advice, Richards and good points too.

Yes I too was afraid of accidentally putting a god or a dump stat. I want the game to be grounded in reality as much as possible, and I want the player to train the stats (like in JA 2), I always liked this concept. The concept you propose seems possible if I can implement my design to get the most enjoyable experience and tactical depth.

As a side note what do you people think, would different weapons take more to fire, because I really want to have plenty of weapons, of the same type, caliber, etc.

Thanks

From the new xcom 1 (see pic below). All soldiers had 2 actions per turn. The differency between them was mainly what ability you chose when leveling up (you had 2 choices each level) which made them distinctly different (and YOU made them different, not arbitrary assigned random stats).

There was actually only 3 "real", individual stats: will, aim, defence.

Also the classes made them distincly different. In old xcom all soldiers were basically the same. And you optimized them to each have the one, best gun.

Having loads of numbers isn't doing anything by themselves. As pointed out by others: do NOT add stuff/stats unless they have a distinct purpose ingame.

I talked to my programmer and he says, the system can be changed because right now it's pretty bare bones. 

I went and read a couple of first posts, and the more I think about it, the thing that Richards suggests while not a bad thing, seems like an expansion to the one-two system. He wrote one small action, one large and one full which takes the whole round. If I remember correctly in new XCOM if you use some actions it will end the turn for that soldier, right? It's been a while since I played it, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Also, I don't want classes in my game. What I had in mind, is here is a soldier with stats, you can improve some of them and make the most of their available skills. For instance, some have good aim, but also are good with explosives, so the player can choose which to upgrade during the game. I just think predetermined classes are a bit restrictive, and I just wanted for the player to choose which class or role they want for their soldier.

Thanks, suliman for the picture with stats, I've found this very useful.

Hey Noddy92.

As a new-school player (I'm 20), I would suggest the system that XCOM offers. It seems not hard to understand and yet pretty variable. But again, I am a newbie, so don't listen to me, it's just my opinion. 

Guess I need to check out Jagged Alliance:D

Oh you definitely should especially Jagged Alliance 2, old Xcom, Fallout Tactics, and such. 

Before this thread comes to an end, I have one final question. 

What is the best way to calculate action points or time units for one-two system? See, I was thinking something along the lines of Fallout 1, where one stat decided action points (Agility), but further questioning led me to the conclusion that it's best to combine it with something else to avoid it becoming a god stat. I thought of combining it with another stat, maybe dexterity, som my equation would look like:

Agility + Dexterity = Action points or (Time units)

What do you think is the best approach, for this problem, and if anyone was wondering how Fallout did it here is the link:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Action_Points

I'm looking at the original games and Tactics,

Thanks