next »

[Giaddon]

Hello everyone,

I have kind of a simple question: what would you like to see in a small turn-based strategy game. What is fun - or would be fun - for you? Civilization is too big, chess is too small. The scope I have in mind is in between there. 

I've been considering this and thought it would be a good idea to hear what others had to say. I'm sure there are good ideas that ...someone... could ...use. 

Also: I'm new here. Hi!

[s0]

Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics might be the scope you're looking for.

[zacaj]

Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics might be the scope you're looking for.

'd

[Giaddon]

Those are great games - is there anything from those games you think should be in every TBS? Or something like that?

To be clear, I'm asking about features or concepts that would exist in your ideal TBS game, (although the feature could be taken from an existing game). It doesn't have to be a combat-focused game.

Also: holy God that is a terrible avatar vomiting baby-man picture.

[shadowdim]

Advance Wars has this "10 minutes game session" feel that I really love, though you can have longer missions.
FFTA was great because of its background, but the actual game was pretty boring.
I didn't like Fire Emblem for the same reason.

[Xion]

The only tbs I've ever really played for any noteworthy amount of time was Bahamut Lagoon. I liked the combination of RPG and strategy elements, where your parties moved around like a traditional tbs and then upon close combat it switched to a FFesque view where you could choose moves for each of the party members, and when the turn was over it went back to top-down tbs. I also liked how you could manipulate the environment by like, freezing water to make bridges, or...melting frozen-over water to make a unit fall in and take damage. I think you could catch forests on fire too but I don't remember. Either way, catching forests on fire would be a badass strategy to be able to employ. This stuff was probably in other tbses too but whatever, it's cool.

I also like the way advance wars and fire emblem changes the view to show the units in combat, and doesn't just stick above the playfield.

also it would be cool to be able to let your units hole up in buildings for certain bonuses, or hide and wait in ambush...in a bush...?

Also I think facing should matter, so if you attack from the sides or behind you get a damage bonus or something.

[Alec S.]

If you're talking about tactical turn based games, make sure to check out X-COM:  UFO Defense.

The key element for a small scale strategy game, in my opinion, is making sure every element is extremely interconnected with all the other elements.  Give each action significant outcomes in a variety of ways.  In chess, each move has to be considered from a standpoint of how it offensively benefits your plan, while defensively benefiting your pieces, as well as the relative value of the pieces when you may be sacrificing a piece.

In X-COM, you have to consider the defensive position of your units, visibility, what areas surprise attacks could come from, and what weapon to use in what situation.

In essence, create a set of systems and units that interact in many significant ways, such that each action has to be considered on multiple levels.

EDIT:
One more thing to add, which is a bit more specific than the above advice, is that one of the good things about X-COM is that projectile attacks still had an effect if they missed.  In other words, if you missed an enemy, the projectile kept going until it hit something and thus could hit another enemy, an ally or the environment (which was destructible).  Having attacks work like this created more possible interesting outcomes of attacking.  So, if you're game has projectile attacks, it might be worth considering giving them a trajectory, and a random percentage it can go off the trajectory, rather than just giving it a chance to hit or miss.

[Soulliard]

Everyone is going to have very different opinions of what makes an ideal TBS/TBT game, and these ideas aren't all going to be compatible. Why don't you just try to make the game that you think would be the ideal game? It should be easier for you to find the motivation to make the game if it is your personal vision, and the result will be more cohesive.

I'm not saying you should completely ignore feedback. But you get better feedback by discussing a specific issue, rather than asking "What makes a game good?"

[starsrift]

In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

I'd like to see a pre-European colonization strategy game about the tribes of the Americas. I think that could be really fun, though it'd take some research to put together. Also seems like the pre-Mexican cultures would have a tech advantage, could be tricky to balance.

Actually, fuck that, I'm putting this in my games-to-make idea file.

[The Monster King]

speed of play

basically competitive games are more complex rock paper and scissors so its important that a lot of your moves count and arent just moving units around
well for me anyways
make sure both sides have an equal amount of options to choose from if theyre different, or that the enemy is defeatable if its single player (in which the game is more a puzzle than a rock paper scissors)
having a lot of different options is interesting too

[s0]

What's great about games like FF Tactics, X-COM and certain extent Fire Emblem is that each unit has its own customizable stats, equipment etc. It adds another layer of strategy and it's something that couldn't be done in a large-scale TBS.

Also, I really like the way FE and particularly FFT handle experience points. Planning your actions to maximize EXP gain for the units you want to level up becomes a challenge in itself.

[The Monster King]

how couldnt it be done on a large-scale? theres games with ton of micro especially in a TBS

[RCIX]

I actually prefer turn-based games that have no grid (-> Steambirds). Makes the game much more fluid to me.

[Inane]

If you want actual strategy involved you need to limit the impact of luck; Fire Emblem is so dependent on it (average hit chance is like 50-80%, and then there's criticals) that there's nothing to the games beyond crossing your fingers and positioning your people advantageously. This is what makes that series so fucking boring, atleast for me .

Also, to contradict Sinclair: I really fucking hate having to pummel enemies with a priest whose only offensive ability is to fist the opposing team, just because they don't level up as quickly when they're being used for healing. It wasn't fun equipping my thief with throw stone just to get more JP in FFT, goddammit!

[Taiko]

Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics might be the scope you're looking for.

Also check out Shining Force and Shining Force 2 for the Genesis.  It might be fun to expand on them and give each of your party members an extended storyline (rather than just a few lines here or there), such that your playthrough of the game changes substantially based on the makeup of your party.

[The Monster King]

If you want actual strategy involved you need to limit the impact of luck;

yes yes yes a hundred times yes you are such a beautiful person

random chance is the worse gameplay mechanic

[Giaddon]

These are all really great, guys. Thanks!

[Tanner]

In my opinion, Advance Wars 1 and 2 are the pinnacle of TBS. You have fixed units in the sense that, barring CO powers, they always have the same stats. There's not much gimmicky bullcrap. Everything has a place and meshes well with everything else. There's a map editor for testing strategies. Movement is fast, simple, and satisfying. The rules are simple to understand, yet with a moderate amount of depth to encourage many strategies. Most of all, they are small-scale. Maps aren't much bigger than the GBA screen. A mission can be completed in under 15 minutes if you know what you're doing.

[magnum_opus]

What do you mean by small scale?
Cause on the one hand like Risk is wonderfully small scale in that:
-Few or no unit types.
-Very little to deal with besides the strategy (no resources, no RPG elements, no equipment)
-Can be fast to play.

On the other hand like X-Com is "small scale" in that it's a handful of units fighting a handful of units on a small map.

Like Risk, Settlers of Catan, Lords of Conquest, Worms, Moon Base Commander fall towards the 1st side. FFT, Disgeae, X-Com, Fallout Tactics, Front Mission fall towards the later.

Advance Wars is delightfully in the middle some where.

I ask, cause what I'm looking for in a Small TBS varies depending on which side of the fence it's on.

[Giaddon]

Magnum Opus: That's a good point. In my original question, I meant small-scale in terms of content. Risk I would call small-scale, because you just have the map, the pieces, and simple rules regarding their interaction. X-Com, although it has you controlling individual soldiers, is large-scale because it has a ton of content: various alien types, destructible terrain, fine control over individual units, a base, research, on and on.... It's a much more complex game than risk.