What's the appeal of turn based combat?

[Cid Silverwing]

I believe it's been said a thousand times, but read below.

Turn based = take your sweet, sweet time planning your next strategic move.

 

[CmdrGoob]

Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

on the surface, but RPGs dont just give you all your abilities you have to choose you're own development methods, getting different abilities at different times based off your decisions. Is double attack ever a worse option than single attack? depends, MP cost? recovery time? damage distribution? enemy counter effects? weapon degredation?

ok, so if you're fighting an ice monster and you are suppose to use fire spells on it... what about MP cost? multi-targeting? spell charges? what level of fire magic do you use? how do you make sure you've got a fire spell at this point? who do you give the fire spell to? would the time and effort have been spent elsewhere? who uses the fire spells?

there's more to it than just "what works best for right now" you have to think long term

You're just throwing out a list of everything you can think of. So you seriously think all those questions have an answer that is totally relevant and strategically interesting? Really?

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I believe it's been said a thousand times, but read below.

Turn based = take your sweet, sweet time planning your next strategic move.

I find that it allows you to understand you options better

Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

on the surface, but RPGs dont just give you all your abilities you have to choose you're own development methods, getting different abilities at different times based off your decisions. Is double attack ever a worse option than single attack? depends, MP cost? recovery time? damage distribution? enemy counter effects? weapon degredation?

ok, so if you're fighting an ice monster and you are suppose to use fire spells on it... what about MP cost? multi-targeting? spell charges? what level of fire magic do you use? how do you make sure you've got a fire spell at this point? who do you give the fire spell to? would the time and effort have been spent elsewhere? who uses the fire spells?

there's more to it than just "what works best for right now" you have to think long term

You're just throwing out a list of everything you can think of. So you seriously think all those questions have an answer that is strategically interesting? Really?

yes

whats this "you're just throwing out a list" mean? couldnt you say the same for your FPS strategy thing was just "throwing out a list"?

 

[CmdrGoob]

I believe it's been said a thousand times, but read below.

Turn based = take your sweet, sweet time planning your next strategic move.

I find that it allows you to understand you options better

Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

on the surface, but RPGs dont just give you all your abilities you have to choose you're own development methods, getting different abilities at different times based off your decisions. Is double attack ever a worse option than single attack? depends, MP cost? recovery time? damage distribution? enemy counter effects? weapon degredation?

ok, so if you're fighting an ice monster and you are suppose to use fire spells on it... what about MP cost? multi-targeting? spell charges? what level of fire magic do you use? how do you make sure you've got a fire spell at this point? who do you give the fire spell to? would the time and effort have been spent elsewhere? who uses the fire spells?

there's more to it than just "what works best for right now" you have to think long term

You're just throwing out a list of everything you can think of. So you seriously think all those questions have an answer that is strategically interesting? Really?

yes

whats this "you're just throwing out a list" mean? couldnt you say the same for your FPS strategy thing was just "throwing out a list"?

Because mostly yours is just a bunch of random stuff. I mean do you really put an interesting amount of thought into thinking about what level of fire magic to use? And how do I get the fire spell? Or do I use the MP? (hmmm, is this a trivial mindless filler fight?) Would you really say you OFTEN think about some of that stuff in a way that's interesting.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

You know, I'm not sure. The only turn-based game I play is Heroes Of Might And Magic IV/V, which is strategy. I love it because it's kind of like chess, but more interesting and varied, but I guess RPGs aren't like that.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

I believe it's been said a thousand times, but read below.

Turn based = take your sweet, sweet time planning your next strategic move.

I find that it allows you to understand you options better

Is double strike or single strike is actually tactically different from each other? Hell no; one is strictly better and that's it. Or eg elemental strikes/spells - matching the appropriate element to the appropriate weakness ain't no fricken chess strategy. It doesn't require much thinking. You list a lot of things, but there are only a few things in there that are really strategically interesting beyond simply picking your strongest attack. I mean what are you actually going to do differently when you pick "double strike" instead of "attack" and how does it compare to what you are actually going to do differently if you pick an SMG over an assault rifle?

on the surface, but RPGs dont just give you all your abilities you have to choose you're own development methods, getting different abilities at different times based off your decisions. Is double attack ever a worse option than single attack? depends, MP cost? recovery time? damage distribution? enemy counter effects? weapon degredation?

ok, so if you're fighting an ice monster and you are suppose to use fire spells on it... what about MP cost? multi-targeting? spell charges? what level of fire magic do you use? how do you make sure you've got a fire spell at this point? who do you give the fire spell to? would the time and effort have been spent elsewhere? who uses the fire spells?

there's more to it than just "what works best for right now" you have to think long term

You're just throwing out a list of everything you can think of. So you seriously think all those questions have an answer that is strategically interesting? Really?

yes

whats this "you're just throwing out a list" mean? couldnt you say the same for your FPS strategy thing was just "throwing out a list"?

Because mostly yours is just a bunch of random stuff. I mean do you really put an interesting amount of thought into thinking about what level of fire magic to use? And how do I get the fire spell? Or do I use the MP? (hmmm, is this a trivial mindless filler fight?) Would you really say you OFTEN think about some of that stuff in a way that's interesting.

yes

 

[Reolus]

I like how it caters to different styles of thinking.

FPS reacting, sensing, intuiting is fun - but planning, reviewing, evaluating and making thoughtful tactical considerations without time constraints is also fun too.

Your perspective and gaming style definately changes, I reckon!

 

[tsb247]

I have never been a fan of turn based RPGs, but turn based Strategy games are some of my favorites. It's all a matter of context for me. I can understand a turn representing a week, month, or a year in a 4X game, but in combat between two or even a group of enemies, I just don't see a rational justification for it.

At the end of the day, I HATE turn based RPGs.

 

[Mechsoap]

i dont really like turn based, its like saying ''i will move one step and hit you and after i finish my round you can try to run with a limited time meter or w/e, see real time is much more tactical meaning you could die if you go to the shitter forgeting to pause it

 

[meepop]

The appeal of it is simple: It makes you think "What should I do here?!" However, it's main point can be best described in five words: Big guy stomps little guy. Dumb as it sounds, my point is that turn-based combat adds not only strategy but also a sort of...prevention method. In other words, let's say you're playing a Pokemon game; you have a Squirtle and your opponent has a Charmander which knows let's just say Thunderbolt...The appeal of it is, if they have a way to beat you, then it's best to make it fair instead of having them attack non-stop until your Squirtle falls over.

 

[fletch_talon]

Less rushed, or stressful.
I can sit playing pokemon, get into a battle, get distracted by something on telly and not be penalised for it. Its great for games where I want to use my head more than my reflexes.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

You know it's not just JRPGs that have turn-based combat? The greatest WRPG of them all, Fallout, was turn-based.

The appeal lies in a greater tactical depth than on-the-fly thinking. You can really use your smarts to defeat a challenge, rather than the usual circle-strafe or grenade spam.

 

[aegios187]

I really wish there was at least an option to make the combat turn based. I always felt I would of enjoyed the NWN series a lot more. It would be like playing a graphical table top. A lot of the nuances of D&D 3.5 combat system are better represented with turn-based, especially in the areas of provoking and getting attacks of opportunity, especially with reach weapons like polearms. In RTS it was just a clustermess and the game seemed so random in how it handled attacks of opportunity.

 

[Reolus]

I really wish there was at least an option to make the combat turn based. I always felt I would of enjoyed the NWN series a lot more. It would be like playing a graphical table top. A lot of the nuances of D&D 3.5 combat system are better represented with turn-based, especially in the areas of provoking and getting attacks of opportunity, especially with reach weapons like polearms. In RTS it was just a clustermess and the game seemed so random in how it handled attacks of opportunity.

For all it's flaws, I really thought that the PC game Temple of Elemental Evil did turn-based 3.5 rules really well, especially move/standard action splits and attacks of opportunity.

 

[SpireOfFire]

it requires a much more tactical approach than any other gameplay style IMO.

RTS's say hai. Or try watching some competitive FPS games.

Nearly everything is spelt out in JRPGs - either throught the menu text or trial and error. You are not a strategic genius for deciding to heal your character on low HP, or deciding to cast water blast on the fire elemental.

Silent Storm. Play it.

play this.

 

[The DSM]

It gives lots of planning time, it lets me scroll through all my abilites and think about what im going to do.

Also some realtime ones make it to easy to spam attacks, if its turn based you and the enemy dont have to act fast so both of you can bide your time.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

snippity

Turn-based combat requires more strategic thinking than live action combat. It's more based on planning things out instead of having good reflexes. It takes a while but I greatly enjoy the strategies behind it. But that's just my opinion.