"Greyhawk" announced

[InShambles]

...can you imagine figthing 20 orcs in turn-based mode and waiting for the to do their moves, one at a time?

Guess you've never played Civilization 3.

 

[Destil]

Personaly, this is largly what I've been waiting for, and I'd much rather have fewer and harder fights than lots of ones I can cut though fast if everything works. The illusion of control in the Infinity Engein games very often lost on me. Playing through Icewind Dale II now I often find my fighter / rogue & pure rogue only get into position to sneak attack to have my barbarian fighter cleave through whatever the're trying to flank. Turn based would be a big improvement, particuarly with area of effects.

 

[Sixchan]

Guess you've never played Civilization 3.

If 20 orcs fought 20 humans in Civ 3, at the end there would be 20 units (unless humans or orcs are fast units) left at the end. If 20 orcs fight 20 humans in D&D, at the end there could still be all 40 units. and the next round, and the next.

Turn-Based combat in Civ 3 goes faster because of the "You win, lose or withdraw" mechanism. D&D doesn't work like that.

I like the combat system in the Baldur's Gate games and Neverwinter Nights. I thought fallout sucked because the combat was so bloody slow. The only turn-based RPGs I've enjoyed have been Square's and that was because you didn't need to resolve movement.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

If 20 orcs fought 20 humans in Civ 3, at the end there would be 20 units (unless humans or orcs are fast units) left at the end. If 20 orcs fight 20 humans in D&D, at the end there could still be all 40 units. and the next round, and the next.

.

And in civ 3 if the units were remotely close in power whoever the computer controlled would win. A freakin pikeman took my full health veteran tank down to 1 bar of health and I wasn't fatigued.(and we weren't in a city or on a mountain) And I almost always take at least one bar of damage from them. Man I wish in the game the computer was just smarter so its controlled countried were closer to me tech wise instead of it just cheating all the time.

sorry for the rant.

 

[Sixchan]

We once had a "Who'd win?" of Spearman vs. Tank, Spearman vs. Goku, Spearman vs. Superman, and many others. Speary came out a winner every time.

I've lost 1 Panzer to a Spearman, and 2 Tanks. I play with the random seed off, so I just sat in disbelief until the game reloaded.

 

[Cougar]

I am actually looking forward to trying out computer regulated turn based combat with 3E. We have had real time (or close to it) with Icewind Dale 2 and Neverwinter Nights and although it works well, it loses some of the tactical quality of 3E that I really like. I have been missing the turn based combat since the OLD gold box Pool of Radiance.

To anyone complaining about the length of combats, I have a question. What do you do when playing PnP?

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

[C]an you imagine figthing 20 orcs in turn-based mode and waiting for the[m] to do their moves, one at a time?

Yes, I can imagine it from PoR2 which was deeply flawed, and yet still fun for me. And then some guy (at www.alindyar.com) made a "speed hack" which let you speed up and slow down the game (via either +/- or 7/8, I forget which). _Huge_ difference. Those 20 zombies sloooooooowly trudging at you from 3 football fields away would zip right up to you with a few keyboard presses.

As long as the designers allow gameplay options to speed up aspects of the turn-based combat, I'll be happy. For example, it's fine with me if I can make all _movement_ superfast. What I want to slow down on is the enemy spellcasting, attacks, etc.

Also, while I played through (sometimes multiple times) and loved all the Infinity Engine games, the real-time nature of combat never failed to annoy me (usually slightly, sometimes mightily). Pause combat, issue order to mage to cast spell, unpause, mage shoots his sling at enemy, curse, pause combat, turn off party AI, issue order to make to cast spell, unpause combat, mage starts casting, mage gets hit, spell gets interrupted, curse. Grr. I'll still buy Lionheart the nanosecond it's released, of course (not exactly an IE game, although screenshots imply similarities, and it's definitely realtime).

I agree with others, though, that it's far too early to get excited and that an actual release in June (of '03) would have to be taken as a sign of the end times.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Sixchan]

I am actually looking forward to trying out computer regulated turn based combat with 3E. We have had real time (or close to it) with Icewind Dale 2 and Neverwinter Nights and although it works well, it loses some of the tactical quality of 3E that I really like. I have been missing the turn based combat since the OLD gold box Pool of Radiance.

To anyone complaining about the length of combats, I have a question. What do you do when playing PnP?

PnP is different. When the players or DM are taking their turns, at least something vaguely interesting is happening. With turn-based CRPGs, it's: You move. You Attack. Your opponent moves. Your opponent attacks. This is a lot more boring when there is no interaction between Player and DM.

I don't enjoy combat. I'm a roleplayer. I've never completed a game on anything more difficult than 'normal' difficulty because I'd rather get back to the plot. In FFVII, I had to spend 8 hours levelling up to beat Demons Gate. 4 hours to beat Carry Armour. Ditto for most RPGs. Chrono Trigger is my absolute favourite CRPG, and that's because it had a great story, and I did not have to go XP hunting even once.

Same with PnP. I'd rather my players roleplayed a daring rescue of the princess from the vampire's castle than that they charge in killing everything.

 

[mmu1]

Yes, I can imagine it from PoR2 which was deeply flawed, and yet still fun for me. And then some guy (at www.alindyar.com) made a "speed hack" which let you speed up and slow down the game (via either +/- or 7/8, I forget which). _Huge_ difference. Those 20 zombies sloooooooowly trudging at you from 3 football fields away would zip right up to you with a few keyboard presses.

Heh... Let's just say we probably don't have the same idea of "fun", then.

I don't like the enormous hordes of computer-controlled enemies present in almost every CRPG because they rarely do anything interesting, and the designers make up with quantity for inferior AI. (or, as was the case with PoR, also by actually having the game cheat at the dice, but leaving the option to display die-rolls in the game...)

The thing I liked the most about the Inifity Engine games were the few fights when you were either a)The right level and at the right spot that the magic-using enemies weren't all spellcasters immune to everything with multiple spell triggers and contingencies, and there was some tactical fun involved in using the right magic to counter them, and b)The hard encounters against other adventuring parties, that always required you to have a battle plan and strategize a little.

Just standing there and hacking away at 20 or 30 monsters on the screen isn't really me idea of fun. I tolerate it in games like Fallout and Fallout 2, because I enjoy the story and character development enough... The fact that you can only have one character if you want to also helps, I'd hate to do those massive combats on an even bigger scale with a party of 6.

What I would like are as many as possible tough, heavily scripted combats making at least some use of the terrain, with the enemies designed to do something besides "Pick a random (or closest) character and run towards it in a straight line to try to kill it." Now, if they were able to get those 20 orcs to approach the party from several sides to avoid area of effect spells and actually use "aid another" and grappling to pose a real intelligent threat that'd be one thing, but if there's 20 of them there because all they can do is run up and swing their weapons, then it's not what I'd prefer to see in a game.

 

[Welverin]

I don't enjoy combat. I'm a roleplayer. I've never completed a game on anything more difficult than 'normal' difficulty because I'd rather get back to the plot. In FFVII, I had to spend 8 hours levelling up to beat Demons Gate. 4 hours to beat Carry Armour. Ditto for most RPGs. Chrono Trigger is my absolute favourite CRPG, and that's because it had a great story, and I did not have to go XP hunting even once.

You sound like an Ultima fan who hasn't realized it yet. I'm firmly convinced you could beat some of, if not all, of the later games with out ever raising your level. Not that it's possible to get through the entire game without doing so.

U6-8 and UW2 have no foozle at the end that needs killing.