mmu1 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'd also prefer the combat to be done as true to the 3E mechanics as possible, including real turn-based movement.
But a game like that, to work well, would have to depart from the massive amounts of combat you usually find in a CRPG and emphasize quality over quantity - can you imagine figthing 20 orcs in turn-based mode and waiting for the to do their moves, one at a time?
Lizard said:
Children. Feh.
Three words for you, kid:"Pool of Radiance". Try battles against thirty or forty critters at once. On 16-20mhz computers.
NPC said:Anyone remember the Temple of Aphshai (sp?).
mmu1 said:
Try playing Steel Panthers and battles with a hundred units to a side, grandpa.
I prefer turn-based games to real-time ones, contrary to the assumptions everyone seems to be making based on the fact that repetitive slaughter of 20 or 30 enemies with no tactics involved doesn't appeal to me. High numbers are fine, as long as they're there for a reason, instead of being just a way for making up for crappy AI.
Vpenman said:
I do. IFIRC, you read a text decription of the room you were in from a printed manual. Actually, that was the basis of some of what we did with the gold box games at SSI.
Victor
KnowTheToe said:This sounds cool. I prefer turn based games because I like planned strategic combat. XCOM was one of my favorite games because of the turn based squad combat. I loved that game. I also have a game called Combat Mission, which is a WWI Isimulation game that kicks ass.
http://www.combatmission.com/