First person TBS

[Sgt. Groovy]

I'm not very familiar with strategy games, so I don't know if this idea has been ever used, but during the last few days I have been thinkin about how first person view would work in a turn-based strategy game.

My idea is that the landscape would be 3d, but the only view the player would have of it would be the subjective views of the units. That is, no "eagle-eye" views of the battlefield, unless you have flying units. This would have several consequences to the gameplay:

a) The terrain and vegetation would obstruct the view a lot, so it would become very important to send out scouts over the hills, around mountains and into the woods.

b) It would also become important to position units on good vantage points to have a general view of the battle. This would most likely to be a job for the leaders.

c) Unless you remember always to look over your shoulder, or keep units back-to-back, you might be snuck up on from behind.

d) You might have a map of the area, but it wouldn't show the position of the units, you would have to figure it out by yourself from the landmarks they see. Keeping track of your units' positions would probably become a major task.

c) If a unit would get so far from other untits, that none of them can see it, it might easily get lost. That is, you still control it, but have no idea where it is.

I guess there are RTSs with first person view, but it would be interesting to see how it would work in TBS.

[tsr]

It sounds kinda cool, my only concern (as a person that has trouble to remember what I just wrote) is that it probably needs to be on a quite small scale (or with the possibility to do some things automaticly).

I'm picturing myself trying to get a good picture of the setting while my opponent dies of boredoom

Ops, didn't mean to sound like I don't like it, I do

/tsr

[appleide]

I remember seeing a game just as you described.... It worked like close combat, but was 3-d, and tbs

[Elvish_Pillager]

Instead of a first person TBS, why not a turn based FPS?

[Sgt. Groovy]

It sounds kinda cool, my only concern (as a person that has trouble to remember what I just wrote) is that it probably needs to be on a quite small scale (or with the possibility to do some things automaticly).

Yes, and the combat mechanics should be pretty simple, no more complex than in Wesnoth.

The player would most likely have to come up with schemes to keep the units organised. One way would be to move them in formations, so that each unit would only have to keep track of one or two other units to know its place. Like when you want to move units through a forest, move them in file so that every unit will see the one in front of it, so none of them will get lost. The units would also have to have their own role in the formations, a sector to cover for enemy attacks, a predefined way to move when the formation needs to be changed into another, etc.

It would also be handy to divide the army into smaller groups, call them "squads", and assign one unit, a "squad leader", to always stay in a place where it cas see all the others, so the group movements and actions can be better coordinated.

Wait a minute, that sounds just like the army!

Instead of a first person TBS, why not a turn based FPS?

This reminded me of a duel scene in Barry Lyndon, where the duellists didn't shoot simultaneously, but took turns, the seconds flipping a coin to see who gets to shoot first.

[Dragon Master]

This sounds like a prime example of realism taken too far. Seriously, if you played a TBS like this, how fun do you expect it would be to try and get a bearing by switching between unit views? just my opinion....

[JW]

This sounds cool, but it also sounds like it would be far too complicated to do well, and even harder to do well, interestingly, and fun for several people.

If you do it though, props, and send me a link.

[zookeeper]

This could work in a game where you control a small squad. Something like 2-4 units, no more. You would move units in the first-person view and issue some simple actions to them, such as "fire at will" or "stay hidden", which they would carry out while you're controlling someone else. Then you could issue issue team-wide commands whenever, like "attack", "cease fire" or "retreat" to for example trigger the attack when you've moved everyone into position. You'd also be able to set things like an aggression level for the characters (so when the attack starts, do they snipe from the bush or charge madly guns blazing), and characters would have different strengths and weaknesses (like Ivan the soldier would be much more accurate when charging madly than Joe the medic would, but couldn't move as silently).

Basically a sort of a first-person "Commandos", I guess.

[zaimoni]

I am already planning something like this, in C++. [I think of it as a turn-based FPS.] Perhaps we should compare notes.

I'm a bit further along in the Newtonian physics/ground combat case than the relativistic physics/space combat case, but they're both still vaporware.

[Dave]

I don't think it would be very fun in a TBS.

I think one of the fundamental principles of a TBS is that since the player has unlimited time to think, the game should organize all information that is accessible to the player in the optimal possible way, so that the player can concentrate on thinking, rather than struggling with the interface.

Now, it's possible that a game rule could be that the player can only see what is in the line-of-sight of the unit(s) they control, but this can still be done from a bird's-eye view.

David

[kshinji]

It should be computed what each unit sees, and shown on the 3D map. This destroys the thing with "where is this unit on the map?" tough.

[Ceri Cat]

Hmm a Turn Based version of Battle Zone? If anyone recalls the PC game it was a 1st/3rd person shooter with strategic elements in that you had base building features included.

Also the old Space Hulk game (DOS, Amiga) used partial turn based control and was a first person shooter.

Can a TB FPS actually work? Hmm actually I'd have to say yes, with a decent interface design it could even be a lot of fun. Even once the novelty wore off. Most of the old CRPGs had a FP perspective, but combat was usually turn based (been thinking of playing the Wizardry series again all week actually).

[irrevenant]

a) The terrain and vegetation would obstruct the view a lot, so it would become very important to send out scouts over the hills, around mountains and into the woods.
b) It would also become important to position units on good vantage points to have a general view of the battle. This would most likely to be a job for the leaders.

These two can be (and have been) represented in a standard RTS view via "fog of war". That would seem a more elegant approach in TBS too.

c) Unless you remember always to look over your shoulder, or keep units back-to-back, you might be snuck up on from behind.

Actually, unless you're looking through multiple eyes simultaneously you can be snuck up when standing back-to-back too. (Unless there's some sort of 'enemy sighted' auto-alert?).

[Ceri Cat]

TBS still use fog of war to emulate the old line of sight. In many wargames you use a forward observer to spot for your artillery who obviously don't have LoS, Tribes used a similar idea on the FPS front with you being able to drop beacons or tag targets with a laser for indirect fire weaponry. All of my buddies have gotten good at artillery support and spotting so we can take turns when we play tribes together *shrugs*.

It's called SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), and in a game sense it'd be a free action where on sighting a target unit x will report "X, contact 12 high." In reality we frequently skip identifying individuals in a squad unless we're part of a larger group on the same frequency, in a small group you recognise your buddies by voice which means you only state the important details, location of contact relative or absolute, posture if known ie I only said contact which means unconfirmed whether hostile or friendly, 12 high means relative bearing straight ahead, above speaker.

In Battletech I never bothered with such calls after a while when running the Mechwarrior RPG supplement, because one of the first bits of kit we usually tracked down and had installed was a C3 (Military definition of the primary concerns in an op and the usual targets of opportunity you waste, command, control, & communications) master and slaves, which was a small computer network for tactical ops, what one mech could spot the others knew about it helped for long range engagements, increasing your sensor radius, etc the idea of a tacnet is something the Americans have been trying to implement since the Pentagon read Starship Troopers.

Having scouts relaying information from vantage points via radio is common place however, it's why most armies still maintain cavalry scouts, though usually they're no longer on horses, but use motorcycles or other light vehicles or travel on foot to provide information on the lay of the land and troop movements.

[Blarumyrran]

yes