Has anyone attempted to use actions points instead turns for combat?

[Endorya]

Has anyone attempted to use actions points instead turns for combat as in Fallout I or 2?

[EDIT]
For rogue like games!

[Zireael]

You might want to check out Underrail.

[Endorya]

You might want to check out Underrail.

Thanks Zireael!

[guest509]

X-Com.

[Endorya]

Yeah. But I mean a roguelike games

[Quendus]

This kind of system is useful as a user interface in tactical games with small numbers of units, because it lets the player, who thinks on a bigger scale than single-tile moves and single attacks, give a tactically meaningful sequence of orders to a unit without getting distracted by all the other units they control. It's good to minimise the number of times the player switches between controlling different units, as there is some mental adjustment time.

In roguelikes, where the player traditionally controls only one unit, it's not so important to group individual actions into long turns because the player never has to switch to controlling another unit. All commands can be processed immediately.

[guest509]

Yeah. But I mean a roguelike games

x@com

[zasvid]

I attempted to come up with a way to use Fallout action points with more concurrency (essentially a speed system based on AP), but I've abandoned the approach as it was too complex for little gain.

[Endorya]

Yeah. But I mean a roguelike games

x@com

Impressive!

[wire_hall_medic]

I got pretty far programming an RL using an action points system; stable, playable, good variety, etc.  Then I scrapped the whole thing, because the action points system flat out did not work for what I had set up.

Action points make turns take much, much longer.  The only way it really woks is if there's something tactically interesting going on every turn.  That is, if there's always combat and no real exploration except for maybe a couple of turns before combat breaks out to build tension.  I tried auto-ending turns after movement if there were no enemies present, and it still wound up slow.

What really drug it out was the enemy turns.  Since they were doing multiple things, they had to go sequentially, and slowly enough that the player could tell what was going on.  If I were to try again, I would execute movement animations together (see: Shiren the Wanderer).  Or probably go with a modal system, so that only the battles are in tactical mode (like Disgaea, or Advance Wars).

[akeley]

I`m a die hard fan of AP-based combat systems in RPG and strategy games, but don`t feel they`d fit the RL world too well.  As mentioned above, such encounters would probably drag on too much and it fits squad based games better anyway.

Steam Marines qualifies...a fine game, but it does feel bit sluggish at times.

[Kyzrati]

I got pretty far programming an RL using an action points system; stable, playable, good variety, etc.  Then I scrapped the whole thing, because the action points system flat out did not work for what I had set up.

Action points make turns take much, much longer.  The only way it really woks is if there's something tactically interesting going on every turn.  That is, if there's always combat and no real exploration except for maybe a couple of turns before combat breaks out to build tension.  I tried auto-ending turns after movement if there were no enemies present, and it still wound up slow.

What really drug it out was the enemy turns.  Since they were doing multiple things, they had to go sequentially, and slowly enough that the player could tell what was going on.  If I were to try again, I would execute movement animations together (see: Shiren the Wanderer).  Or probably go with a modal system, so that only the battles are in tactical mode (like Disgaea, or Advance Wars).

I'd agree that an AP system doesn't work for the reasons you point out, especially if it's a single-character game.

Once you control multiple units though, there are ways to handle those drawbacks and keep the game fun. Adding sound effects so that all enemy actions are heard both adds a new dimension and makes enemy turns a lot more informative and interesting. Keeping maps small enough that they don't require too much exploration is another important element.

I recall a comment about last year's fantasy conversion for X@COM praising the giant 3D tree house complete with winding staircases and suspension bridges, but pointing out that it was a bit of a trudge to explore it. I just didn't put enough content close by to keep it interesting while the player walked around (that version was also before I started including sound effects). Map design is a very important factor when it comes to keeping an AP system playable and fun.

[wire_hall_medic]

I agree.  I've played several games with action points that I've really enjoyed; Advance Wars and Squad Command immediately jump to mind.  And they both feature multiple units to manage, with a map being resolved with far fewer turns than an RL.

And if either of those games had an RL's level of replayability, I'd probably still be playing them.

[Gr3yling]

What's the advantage of using action points rather than just assigning time values to actions?  Like, saying a basic attack takes seven tenths of a second, or whatever?

[Kyzrati]

An action point system usually implies that a single unit will be able to perform multiple actions in one turn, before any others get to act. (Unless there is some form of reaction system, like you see in X-COM.)