Tactical turn-based games and 'interrupts'

[Stark]

Turn-based tactical games, such as XCOM, JA2 and Silent Storm use the concept of 'interrupts' to allow prepared units to perform actions during an opponents turn. This is used to mitigate the possibility of ridiculous things happening, like someone running 30 meters down a corridor towards two guys with guns, stabbing one, then hiding behind a door.

However, I (unsurprisingly) don't like the implementation of this idea in any of the aforementioned games. In JA2 and SS units get 'interrupts' on a stats-based random basis. Once you've 'interrupted' them, you can do anything you want with the time units remaining, unless counter-interrupted. This leads to absurdity and counteracts a lot of the good work done by interrupts.

In JA2, you pull a gun out of your pack, see that you've got fuck all chance of hitting, then pull out another one, all while within meters of someone you 'interrupted'. He just stands there, unless he's lucky enough to interrupt *you*. In SS it's even worse - by default inventory actions take no time, so you can try all your guns, all your nades, and with the right actions even look around, while the guy you're interrupting stands still, mid run.

Obviously, people appearing stationary is a part of turn-based games, but the idea of interrupts is related to initiative, and has possibilities for a significantly better implementation. For instance, if in these situations each party alternately used time units, one at a time, absurdities like taking a 'careful shot' at a guy visible for .5s as he runs across a hallway become impossible. He's only visible for 4 time units, so you have to conduct your response in that time. In the original example, if you surpise a guy at a door, but your weapon is holstered and he has a pistol, you may not be able to draw, aim and fire before he can (assuming he's aware of you).

Of course, all this is really steering such games towards pause-able real-time and not turn-based. I'm quite the fan of turn-based games - ever since Laser Force - but the idea of interrupting someone, then taking time out to reload the machinegun BEFORE shooting him has always irked me. Surely there's room within the 'your turn, my turn' nature of XCOM and it's ilk for a revamp of interrupts into something a little less jarringly turn-based?

And I'd like to say this is pretty much all I could come up with as a criticism of Silent Storm. Oh, and my guy sounds like frickin Mario (my headset was broken and I chose at random) and 'Swiss die, you lose' is lame.

[Netko]

Honestly, I don't see anything else except a real-time pause system which could make traditionaly turn-based games have a more fluid time (and that brings its own problems - the tactical gaming aspect of, for example, UFO: Aftershock is inferior to, say, Silent Storm since there is no real reason not to just stand where you are and open fire since cover is usualy too far away in the future to be useful compared to opening up with the entire team on the target).

On the other hand, I think UFO: Apocalypse had the interrupts implented as one action only, so if you started changing weapons you lost your turn (and had a decent chance of reaquireing if your team was good, but it's something similar to your idea). At least I think it was that way.

[Sriad]

Are there any internet-multiplayer-enabling mods out there for Silent Storm? My room mate is a big fan and often bemoans the omission.

Oh, the topic? Pretty silly to be able to do some of those things, but some could be written off as knowlage the character already has and the player just needs to check, like hit %s for his weapons.

Some better available-interrupt-time style implementation could be done well, though.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

A nice way to do it would be one action only, not skill based. So some annoying enemy doesn't run out in the open and blow up your guys with a grenade just because his stats are higher than theirs, but you don't get to turn 180 degrees, draw your weapon, and fire 6 aimed shots, either. If you want an interrupt, you have to have your weapon up, pointed at the direction you think someone's going to come, and ready to fire.

The Combat Mission series had a neat implementation of turn-based gameplay with real-time execution. If you shortened the turn time from a minute to 10 seconds or so, I don't see why that wouldn't work for a squad based game.

[Gunhead]

Laser squad nemesis has one the best combat systems to date.
I've been wondering for a while now why similar systems haven't been implemented more widely.

It would kick ass to see for example a WWII game where you control a team of commandoes, and do your stuff behind enemy lines. Heck, it wouldn't need to be tied to specific time period. With enough room given for modding, people could design small battles from Napoleons days to sci-fi.

-Gunhead

[GuppyShark]

My memory of X-Com was that you could select only one of three interrupt actions - aimed shot, snap shot, and auto shot?

That pretty much covers your objection. Firing the primary weapon is the only 'instant' reaction available.

[Batman]

My memory of X-Com was that you could select only one of three interrupt actions - aimed shot, snap shot, and auto shot?
That pretty much covers your objection. Firing the primary weapon is the only 'instant' reaction available.

X-Com didn't let you select any interrupt action, those happened automatically, based on how you configured your squaddies. Games that let you select those actions can, indeed, let you do an absurd amount of stuff in what supposedly is a below-second to single-figure second time window.

[Nephtys]

One system that works was with an X-COM like game I played a few years ago. Your squad moved with X MP a turn, but you can select them to go on overwatch, which makes them no longer selectable for that turn. During the enemy turn, anyone that crosses their sight can be shot at, automatically, using some MP with each shot until the defender runs out.

Regretably, it made the game a match of standing around as the enemy came at you, and got hit at long range by rockets.

[weemadando]

I like the ALFA: Antiterror system of simultaneous turns. That way, if some one steps out, and your man is ready for it (or his orders don't preclude action) he'll take a shot.

[Stark]

One of the reasons I'd like to see a better interrupt system is that such a system would hopefully give a role to traditionally quick, CQB weapons like pistols and SMGs. Due to Gun Inflation (since most tactical games have you scavenging your enemies weapons) in the end everyone has rocket launchers or the best rifle/sniper rifle. If characters with longarms were at a disadvantage in close-range combat due to pistols and SMGs being faster on the interrupt, one of the least appealing parts of tactical games would be fixed.

[weemadando]

One of the reasons I'd like to see a better interrupt system is that such a system would hopefully give a role to traditionally quick, CQB weapons like pistols and SMGs. Due to Gun Inflation (since most tactical games have you scavenging your enemies weapons) in the end everyone has rocket launchers or the best rifle/sniper rifle. If characters with longarms were at a disadvantage in close-range combat due to pistols and SMGs being faster on the interrupt, one of the least appealing parts of tactical games would be fixed.

Again - ALFA anti-terror. Every single weapon has different stats for maneuvrability and aim-time. Thus someone with a pistol/SMG is far more likely to get off a quick snap shot that someone with a HMG.

[AMX]

My memory of X-Com was that you could select only one of three interrupt actions - aimed shot, snap shot, and auto shot?
That pretty much covers your objection. Firing the primary weapon is the only 'instant' reaction available.

X-Com didn't let you select any interrupt action, those happened automatically, based on how you configured your squaddies. Games that let you select those actions can, indeed, let you do an absurd amount of stuff in what supposedly is a below-second to single-figure second time window.

I detect a minor misunderstanding.
The first two X-COM games let you reserve TUs for aimed/snap/auto-shot, (and kneeling down, but you had to do that at the end of turn); so you wouldn't accidentally move one step too far, and end up with 1 TU less than your soldier would need to fire (still happened, BTW, if the soldier had to turn towards the enemy).
The actual reactions were automated, depending on your unit's reaction stat (and the TU cost of a shot, IIRC).

Other games let you actually choose what happens - and you do that during the enemy's turn, which is "broken".


Note: X-Com: Apocalypse added "reaction movement", where units that were set to "cautious" would run for cover instead of shooting. Still fully automated, avoiding the "brokenness" that's being criticised here.
(For the record, I always set my men to "aggressive". Never got the hang of reaction movement.)

[Thunderfire]

I like SPWAWs system best. The game asks you if you want to make a snap shot.

[Darwin]

Other games let you actually choose what happens - and you do that during the enemy's turn, which is "broken".

Yeah, properly, you go by the Xcom model, except you get a shoot/no shoot decision when your interrupt is triggered, and that's all you get.