Squad Based Tactical Games - Ideas/Criticisms

[pleb]

Hi everyone,

 

I’m part of a small design team and we’ve been discussing the idea of a squad level tactical game. We wanted to come to players like yourselves, who have a ton of experience in the genre and learn from you. To that end, we came up with a few questions. It would be great to hear your thoughts on these questions:

 

What was your favorite tactical squad game and why?

 

What were the features of your favorite game that you would most want to see in any future tactical game - e.g. the setting, level of role playing, research tree, combat mechanics, graphics (although less likely nowadays)

 

What were the features of successor games to your favorite game that you didn’t like or other reasons why you don’t believe that successor games have matched your favorite game to date?

 

What are additional features that you would like to see in future squad level tactical games? Or what features would you love to borrow from existing squad level tactical games that you believe would make your favorite game even better?

 

Could you recommend any games besides the Silent Storm, X-Com and Jagged Alliance series that you think we should try and get our hands on and play through.

 

Do you know of any examples of modern games that just get this genre ‘right’? If not, where did they go wrong?

 

We know it's a lot of questions, but there is so much to discuss! We look forward to your responses. Also, if you prefer, feel free to get in touch with us via PM.

[silencer_pl]

Full Spectrum Warrior, Fallout Tactics besides of course the obvious. Of course there was Brother In Arms series. The main reason such games aren't popular it's because they require more from casual gamer than they can handle.

 

I think that new XCOM Enemy Unknown will use most everything that a squad tactical game should have. We could only speculate about replacing TU's with dedicated actions (move + shot or move + move).

[Space Voyager]

Frozen Synapse. IMO this is the best solution seen so far. Turns give you time to plan, prevent click-fest and simulate the inability of the commander to have everything under control all of the time, simultaneous execution demands that you coordinate the whole squad instead on a soldier per soldier basis, real time execution gives the necessary thrill and changes everything you have planned, just like it happens in reality.

 

Pure awesome.

[pleb]

Appreciate the responses guys! I think we needed to be clearer in our original post about what we definitely knew we wanted the game to be like:

 

Squad level - i.e. the player controls 1 to 12 individual troops against an unspecified number of enemies.

Turn-based - one side goes, than the other side goes (or potentially a Frozen Synapse system where turns are resolved simultaneously, but these favors multiplayer play, which we do not believe we will be including in our game)

Isometric view - just because we like it, and for good old times. Plus our current project is full isometric hex based TBS, so our artists and programmer have enough experience with it.

 

So while we're definitely open to borrowing ideas from FPS type squad games and the like this is the general look and feel we're going for.

 

 

Anyway, I took a look at the videos of the games you suggested.

Fallout Tactics and Frozen Synapse were obviously the two closest ideas.

 

How important is a linear storyline vs. a branching plot vs. just doing random mission after random mission (with some reward at the end that lets you buy more kit for your team). Do you guys have any other suggestions for what we should/shouldn't be doing? Thank you very much for taking the time to reply up to now!

[Space Voyager]

I can not find a single pro for a linear storyline. For the player at least, there are definitely benefits for the developer. In general a linear storyline simply equals no replay value. As for Frozen Synapse, it has a completely linear storyline and missions that you do have no effect on it, so I really can not see myself playing it all again.

What X-COM did "best ever" was random missions that still directly influenced the strategic game; you found new equipment/aliens for research and later use. If you lost a soldier it cost you in money and his/her already gained experience (sorely missed in following missions). And so forth.

X-COM's only drawback was extremely time consuming tactical system. After playing games that let you finish a mission with same depth but ten times faster (UFO: Aftermath, Aftershock and Afterlight), I was just never able to push through more than several missions in original X-COM, it was just painfully slow. Sure, when there was nothing better available I lost hundreds of hours in it, afterwards though...

 

FS' combat system does not favour MP, as its single player portion shows quite clearly. It is however fast enough for MP as well, and it allows all kinds of tactical decisions, SP or MP.

[silencer_pl]

It depends how you look at linearity. If you are just looking on the main story than you could say all games are linear. If you look how you go through the story than it's something different.

 

You could for example look at old game Incubation. It was very linear but it also gave replay values since it had many multiple choices on character level. They also had 3 or 4 situations of choosing the path. For example the very first choice alters what kind of soldiers you will find.

[Pete]

In adventure gaming, Star Trek 25th Anniversary as Star Trek Judgement Rites were linear but wonderfully repayable.

 

You could complete missions sometimes with an abysmal score due to the decisions you made along the way, and the replay value was in trying to work out the right choices to make.

 

I just wish both games would appear on GOG.

 

I guess the point I'm making in the context of this topic is that linear can be okay as long as there is enough incentive to play again. It works well in certain genres but it would need something exceptional to draw people back especially in a squad based tactical game.

 

A mix of the two can work well though - Silent Storm and Silent Storm: Sentinels were technically linear in that you work towards key missions along the way and unlock the overall story as you go, but there were plenty of great side missions you'd never get to play on your first play through, or random encounters you'd be lucky to encounter unless you knew exactly where they occurred (still not played the UFO mission in SS but I did get the space rocket one ).

 

I think if Nival hadn't been screwed over by JoWooD there they'd be on game 7 of a highly successful series by now as those games were groundbreaking for their time, and a lot can still be learned from them now.

[7h30n]

I would also recommend to play: Gorky 17

 

My personal favourite is UFO: Enemy Unknown. After that I would go with Jagged Alliance.

What UFO:EU did best (in my opinion) was the setting, atmosphere and strategy layer on top of the turn based squad combat!

What Jagged Alliance did best (in my opinion) was the sheer complexity of the combat and non player characters you cared about.

 

Linear or branching story? Linear story almost always offers much more polishing time to the developers, much more control and overall the linear story that way gets much more thought. On the other hand, branching storyline offers the player excellent replay incentive, but it is very hard for the developer to make meaningful choices that make the whole story good.

Personally, I would go with something what Deus Ex did (I'm referencing here Deus Ex 1 because in my opinion it had a superior storytelling than other games in the series) - offer player (sometimes not so obvious) choices on certain things but keep the story linear to keep it coherent, concise and great!

But, is story really necessary in a turn based tactical squad based game? I really have hard time remembering following or being engaged with a story in a game like that, unless I was playing some Strategy RPG in vein of Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics... Does that mean I don't want the story in you game? No, but a good story requires a lot of work!

 

Concerning mechanics and gameplay: I recommend you do what you think is the best, what you would like to put in the genre. Don't take for e.g. Jagged Alliance and make the gameplay 'same as that but modern and better'. Take those games as inspiration to find new solutions to turn based combat. After all there aren't that many games in this genre, I'm sure there is room for something completely different yet familiar!

 

Good luck and I can't wait to see what will the final product be!

[NKF]

It depends on how you want to balance it. Do you want a story that has a clear start, middle and end with game bits in between, or do you want a game with a story that fleshes out your game and tells you how to reach the end?

 

It's not really as clear cut as that, as there' any number of ways to mix story and game. I'll try and cobble up some examples.

 

A story with game bits in between can be used to tell a story from start to end, which may also branch out with multiple endings. Stronger stories can be presented this way. Some actions may cause minor changes in the narrative. Playing areas are basically opened up in sequence as the story progresses. I was thinking games like Deus Ex, System Shock II, Valykria Chronicles, Person 3 and Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic are a bit like this. Re-playability comes in the various ways you can tackle the small compartmentalised segments of the game. Games that are too story reliant however run the risk of just being visual novels where your just have to puzzle your way through the correct sequence of actions that the game designers intended to get to the next story segment.

 

Or you've got a rather open ended game that you can play however you want to reach the final goal. X-Com UFO/TFTD, Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2 for example. All three games are won by destroying a final location/final boss. What story you do get is either triggered or stumbled on. It sets the setting and breathes life into the world you're playing in and points you towards the final mission. The player can always put it aside for a while to pursue some other objective before returning to it. They can go at their own pace basically.

 

Some food for thought.

 

- NKF

[pleb]

Thanks guys!

 

We think story is important. It gives context to the player's actions. Part of what made UFO:EU so cool was that even though you were running these "random" missions, you could then unravel the mystery of why you were being attacked and eventually use that to attack Cydonia. We're also toying with the idea of a Wing Commander Privateer based setup, where missions are offered to freelancers to take on, and we would then take on the missions. The story would come in the form of the context of the worlds in which those missions take place. Maybe there's an ongoing rebellion, and you're assisting either side - maybe there's a massive colonizing spree in one sector and you help to "sterilize" certain sectors by removing the native species.

 

What we're struggling with is how we can use the WCP type missions, but still give the player a reason to continue taking on missions. On a simple level, it's that you get credits for completing a mission, which can be used to hire new soldiers, or conduct research, or buy new weaponry. But what's the point in continuing on a more abstract scale? To be the biggest merc leader of all? To have the game end by X date and you're judged based on your score up to that point?

 

Would love to hear your opinions.

[silencer_pl]

You could also follow story progression like in assassins creed. I mean you had the main plot that revealed most facts, but during that you could take part on many many many many other side missions that revealed some other stuff, thus for example later in the game you could benefit from that.

[FullAuto]

A reason to continue taking missions? I suppose the most basic thing would be paying the bills. If you're running a merc company, that's not going to be cheap. Wages, premises, information, networking, bribes, travel, weaponry, training, life/health insurance, armour, ammunition, medical bills, repairs, etc. If you include resources/management factors then you're going to have to keep taking missions to stay in business.

 

In fact, if you play a mission badly it could end up costing you money, e.g. your team of six mercs is wiped out. You've lost them, their wages that you paid them because you only just started a new month, their weaponry, armour, equipment, ammunition, and you have to either pay out lump sums for their deaths and/or your insurance premiums go up and you didn't get paid the full amount because a chunk of it was dependent upon your success (the traditional "half now, half later" convention from fiction). So now you need six more mercs, in a market where you're known for sending them to their deaths, plus weapons, ammunition, armour, equipment and travel, new life and health insurance policies, training so they're as proficient as your previous team, etc.

 

I wouldn't rely on purely financial motives, though, I'd suggest a story arc, an overarching plot covering the game from beginning to end. I'd suggest something that reflects the rest of the game e.g. a war or conflict of some kind, but not one that you are directly involved in. Perhaps you fought in it earlier and want nothing to do with it, so you do other things; guerrilla warfare, raids, policing, piracy, behind-the-lines strikes, assassinations, getting rid of inconvenient alien species, etc. The war shouldn't be a case of good versus evil, it's not a binary morality choice, but you should have the ability to do good or bad things, and those acts then have good or bad consequences, with no correlation between the two, so bad acts sometimes lead to good consequences, and vice versa.

 

You might take on a Seven Samurai kind of mission, protecting a village from a terraforming corporation who has hired a PMC to drive them out. You prevail, repelling the attack, but the villagers then admit they can't pay you. What you can then do, should you want to, is destroy the village, e.g. it doesn't come up as a choice - "do/don't destroy village" - it should just be something you can do. You can kill the civilians, destroy the buildings with explosives, with either one being a trigger, and go to the terraforming company and say "Cleared them out, pay us."

[Guest reapagan]

Silent Storm got everything right (rag doll physics, destructable environment, excellent graphics) except story sadly lacking.

[Space Voyager]

Pleb, I see you have posted this inquiry in all kinds of strategy/tactics forums. Are the answers the same, at least in general? Have you found a community that has very specific demands?

[Pete]

Silent Storm got everything right (rag doll physics, destructable environment, excellent graphics) except story sadly lacking.

 

Lacking in story? Did you read all the notes throughout the game? It was a very good story with so much detail you wouldn't be able to find all of the scraps of information in one play through.

 

That was my experience anyway. Especially loved the info (though I've forgotten the details) behind the laser beam technology - something about it being ancient technology. All awesome sci-fi.

 

But then not everyone liked the sci-fi aspect.

[silencer_pl]

Actually SS,SSS and H&S had excellent story line. I think it was the first WW2 game that didn't tell standard storyline and I think that it was the best game of Nival

[pleb]

Pleb, I see you have posted this inquiry in all kinds of strategy/tactics forums. Are the answers the same, at least in general? Have you found a community that has very specific demands?

Hi Voyager. You know, to be honest, on some forums this thread has gotten no traction. But this forum, Gamers with Jobs, RPG Codex amongst a few have given some very interesting feedback. We're viewing each of the forums as a sort of different focus group. So while we ask the same follow up questions, it's also dependent on where the discussion goes. E.g. say the discussion in one forum starts talking about AI, we'll probably ask the same question in all the forums, just to hear enough opinions. The idea is to try and gather as much data as possible. The hope is that once we these discussions come to their logical end, we'll have a fair amount of data and opinions to work with during the design process. This is something I've really been handling on my own as the rest of the team is busy working on the hex-based tbs game that I'd mentioned before. I basically just produce (i.e. fund the whole idea) and assist on the design. The hard lifting is done by the rest of the team, when it comes to programming, art, in game balancing. We're also hoping that these discussions will allow us to bring in people who are interested in helping out the team from a design perspective.

 

In terms of your original question, it really depends on the forum. Some have very specific views and keep insisting on FPS type games - despite my constant referreals to isometric tbs But at the same time, there's much to learn from all genres. Others tend to champion one game (say JA2). All in all, I'm glad we posted in so many forums, and the feedback I believe will prove to be very valuable going forward!

 

 

A reason to continue taking missions? I suppose the most basic thing would be paying the bills. If you're running a merc company, that's not going to be cheap. Wages, premises, information, networking, bribes, travel, weaponry, training, life/health insurance, armour, ammunition, medical bills, repairs, etc. If you include resources/management factors then you're going to have to keep taking missions to stay in business.

 

In fact, if you play a mission badly it could end up costing you money, e.g. your team of six mercs is wiped out. You've lost them, their wages that you paid them because you only just started a new month, their weaponry, armour, equipment, ammunition, and you have to either pay out lump sums for their deaths and/or your insurance premiums go up and you didn't get paid the full amount because a chunk of it was dependent upon your success (the traditional "half now, half later" convention from fiction). So now you need six more mercs, in a market where you're known for sending them to their deaths, plus weapons, ammunition, armour, equipment and travel, new life and health insurance policies, training so they're as proficient as your previous team, etc.

 

Thanks, we were thinking along the same lines for the financial side, albeit not to the same detail levels (never really considered insurance for example!) What would you do about losing very well trained mercs. Would you have missions escalating in difficulty the further you're into the game - or should there be a variety available? I ask because if you lose your veteran team and you're stuck with a bunch of scrubs, the game would probably be very painful. At the same time, we could have some sort of fee system where "training is downloaded" to the new scrub so they skip a few levels, and it's prohibitively expensive so maybe you can replace a couple of vets?

 

I wouldn't rely on purely financial motives, though, I'd suggest a story arc, an overarching plot covering the game from beginning to end. I'd suggest something that reflects the rest of the game e.g. a war or conflict of some kind, but not one that you are directly involved in. Perhaps you fought in it earlier and want nothing to do with it, so you do other things; guerrilla warfare, raids, policing, piracy, behind-the-lines strikes, assassinations, getting rid of inconvenient alien species, etc. The war shouldn't be a case of good versus evil, it's not a binary morality choice, but you should have the ability to do good or bad things, and those acts then have good or bad consequences, with no correlation between the two, so bad acts sometimes lead to good consequences, and vice versa.

 

This is similar to what I was thinking. The idea would be that you'd have two or three large macro events taking place. General trends in one direction or the next. And if you perform well in missions aiding/attacking one side you can either accelerate these events or prevent them altogether. What we're trying to do is identify a bunch of large macro trends that then have knock on effects - so that it would appear to the player that they're impacting their world in realtime - when they're just playing various strands of a multi-threaded campaign. For example, maybe we have two major trends, A: The Government of planet X is trying to control a rebellion and B: Colonists are trying to colonize a particularly treacherous world (very dangerous animal life).

 

Maybe if you help the government in A, more rebels join up as colonists for B. Which changes the needs of the colonists in B. if you side with the rebels through a series of missions, you might end up overthrowing the government. Maybe the remnants of that government and their supporters look for a new home and try and take the same planet that is being colonized. Obviously, I just came up with tht off the top of my head but you understand the gist of what I am getting at!

 

You might take on a Seven Samurai kind of mission, protecting a village from a terraforming corporation who has hired a PMC to drive them out. You prevail, repelling the attack, but the villagers then admit they can't pay you. What you can then do, should you want to, is destroy the village, e.g. it doesn't come up as a choice - "do/don't destroy village" - it should just be something you can do. You can kill the civilians, destroy the buildings with explosives, with either one being a trigger, and go to the terraforming company and say "Cleared them out, pay us."

 

This is similar to the above, but I dunno how we could simulate acting on both sides of the trend in A. Maybe it just changes the missions available in A rather than affecting B at all? We'd probably need some sort of reputation system where factions will only offer you missions if you reach a certain level with them? Maybe that prevents you from playing both sides too much,

 

Actually SS,SSS and H&S had excellent story line. I think it was the first WW2 game that didn't tell standard storyline and I think that it was the best game of Nival

Lacking in story? Did you read all the notes throughout the game? It was a very good story with so much detail you wouldn't be able to find all of the scraps of information in one play through.

That was my experience anyway. Especially loved the info (though I've forgotten the details) behind the laser beam technology - something about it being ancient technology. All awesome sci-fi.

But then not everyone liked the sci-fi aspect.

 

What's interesting is that people tend to have different views on the importance of stories as well as whether they liked them. We'll have to keep that in mind. This is the first forum where I have seen people specifically support the story of silent storm. I do notice that on a bunch of forums people have complained about the "twist" in the story and the armored nazis or whatever they were. I've never played it myself, so I don't have an opinion either way . But it is all very interesting. Thanks so much for the feedback guys, and keep it coming!

[silencer_pl]

The panzerkleins in original SS were bit OP since you couldn't even damage them with MG-42 or Panzershreck which by logic should be more than enough to kill it. In SSS PK's were more balanced - maybe the final boss fight was bit over the top (well it was a boss fight after all).

 

And how can you complain in twist in story line ? Twists in story line are something that makes the story great. Except if your hero dies *cough* ME3 *cough*

 

 

I really would like to see some kind of combat strategy like JA but the story should be inspired by Aliens, Alien Breed (latest) and Alien Shooter 2... that would be too perfect.

[FullAuto]

I didn't think S2's story was particularly amazing, but it was okay, for a game. The twist isn't brilliant, and the PK's are overpowered, but I thought it was a nice idea that differentiated it from your average TBT squad-level game. There was a surprising amount of detail there too. H&S' story was better than average, certainly.

 

What would you do about losing very well trained mercs.

 

I know you have to avoid a vicious cycle of losses weakening you and bringing more losses, but I do think you need some element of permadeath in there. There are multiple solutions, none are perfect, but I'll list a few.

 

Akin to Rogue Trooper which you may or may not know: mercs have a chip installed in their brains which stores their combat experience, knowledge, skills, etc. Depending upon how they are killed, chip retrieval may be possible, and that chip can be installed in new mercs, providing combat bonuses, accelerated improvement/levelling, up to the former level of the dead merc.

 

Insurance policies. Insure your mercs in case of death. If they die, you get some money, perhaps with specific clause bonuses (e.g. death by total vaporisation with no chance of chip retrieval, 50% increase in lump sum payout). If this money is a good amount, you can get a new merc, and everything he needs, and have money left over. Which leads to!

 

Purchasable military assistance. If we've got space travel, I'd hazard orbiting craft are more common. If they are, I'd go a step further and suggest said craft could act like God's own air strike if necessary, using kinetic energy weapons/bombs/lasers, and have the cost linked to your current level of success. So if you're not doing so well, Gravity Well Bombs Inc. will cut you a deal, even mid-battle, because they'd rather make some money than none (obviously, if you can't afford to use them, they get nothing) and if you get killed they'll lose a good customer and get no future business (you could even have stuff like a frequent bomber program, where you buy ten strikes and get the eleventh free). Conversely, if you're doing really well, they'll hike prices on you, even going so far as to really sting you mid-battle with a big price increase when the game knows you need a strike (e.g. ratio of enemies to player's mercs passes a certain point). This is not to mention conventional air strikes, missile/rocket strikes, artillery, guided artillery, mortars, etc etc. I'd also suggest dropships/drop pods because they're cool, delivering some fodder to fight alongside you, or some of your mercs for a steeper price and longer wait. An extremely expensive option would be something like a drop pod equipped with a cluster bomb payload, so it bombs the LZ, and then the troops debus right into the remnants of the enemy.

 

And if you perform well in missions aiding/attacking one side you can either accelerate these events or prevent them altogether.

 

Yes. The player should be able to directly influence the conflicts without even necessarily fighting on one side or another, I'd argue. Perhaps the mercs defend a colonist convoy, and their presence ensures Faction A thinks it's military and hits it with an air strike. Not only does this mean the player feels something, because they tried to help people and brought trouble just by being there, it also means Faction B wasn't hit with an air strike, and they manage to take an objective successfully elsewhere.

 

Another example: The player takes a job to rob a colonist frontier town of something small and valuable (technology designs, drugs, whatever) from an informant. It's under the control of Faction A. It is heavily fortified, but lightly manned. The informant tells the player that Faction B is headed to the town, and Faction A is sending massive reinforcements. The town is ripe for the picking, but time is of the essence. That way, the player can:

 

1) Carry out the robbery, kill a few soldiers of Faction A, and escape.

2) Carry out the robbery stealthily, help Faction A defend the town against Faction B, and get paid for it.

3) Carry out the robbery, wipe out the Faction A forces, let Faction B into the town for a price, and escape before Faction A reinforcements turn up.

 

Whoever owns the town at the end of the mission then influences what happens from there in that thread of the story.

 

We'd probably need some sort of reputation system where factions will only offer you missions if you reach a certain level with them? Maybe that prevents you from playing both sides too much,

 

I think a reputation system would be good, and I'd include quite a few factions to work for. Faction A and Faction B fighting a war, merchants, other merc companies, colonists, criminals, etc. It would also be good to have an actual contract system, multiple simultaneous contracts, with specific negotiable clauses (e.g. Faction A contracts prevent you from working for Faction B, but there's no clause in there about hijacking a cargo hauler for pirates). Difference between open and secret contracts, perhaps, or legal versus illegal.

[Guest teamegmar]

Best squad based game mechanics was in the original ghost recon on XBOX/PS2. You had 6 individuals based on two independent fire teams. Allowed for setting ambushes and flanking both sides of the enemy. est part though was that you could take control of any one of the team members at anytime. Replay value was huge because you would play the same objectives over and over to use an alternate weapon combination.

[Guest Maurice]

This is my favorite kind of game.

 

The ones I enjoyed most were:

 

Front Mission 3 (PSX)

Gladius (PS 2)

Valkyria Chronicles (PS3)

 

Call of Ctuhlu : the wasted land (iOS)

 

 

Just started Rad Soldiers on iOS, looks great, but it seems like the type of game where you need to buy in app credits if you want to go far.

[Guest Guest]

What if there were a few other merc groups you are competing against and maybe faction a hires them to do a job while faction b hired u to do it to then u can kill the other mercs also leading to them losing good guys and maybe you can bribe there guys to join you or for information.

[Guest jobenty]

Total Influence (squad tactisc turn based mmo)

 

For me Jaggeda Alliance 2 is the best turn-based squad game ever. But i find one russian online game that is very good TOTAL INFLUENCE you can instal it and see what is turn-bsed squad game. Site is russian but when you installing game choose english for game interface.

 

you can sign up there: https://ti.ggeek.ru/register/

you can use google translate or

1. user name

2. password

3. re-enter password

4. e-mail

5. code

6. and 7. mark that

8. click on first green button for register

9. click on second green button for download client

[Guest Jobenty]

There is some screenshots from Total Influence:

 

https://ti.ggeek.ru/?action=screens

[NKF]

Perhaps you should start a new thread to advertise the game as it would get better coverage that way. It's not going to be seen by too many people except those watching this discussion if it's only posted here.