Tactical Possibility
Moderator: Moderators
Tactical Possibility
Is anyone here a fan of Final Fantasy Tactics, or Tactic's Ogre? There were certain things in the former game that while not crippling, were certainly annoying. The game's are both turn-based tactical games, and had fairly well rendered, if rather flat maps. The characters were also 2D sprites. I was wondering how hard it would be to translate that game into the Spring engine? Most of the combat, and statistic stuff has been solved by the rather rabid fans over at GameFAQ's.com.
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
If FM, and SF are similar indesign to FFT, and TO, then they aren't true RPG's.
How to describe it... Average map size was around 16x16 squares, and had various heights and terrain, along with obstacles, and enemies. Everyone was confined to moving in straight lines, though you could move say two left, and two up, simulating a diagonal move. Battle is typically melee at a range of one square, though some units had two square weapons, and archers had quite a bit of range. Guns are fixed at a max range of eight squares/min range of 4.
Basically two groups of units go at it at a time, with a maximum of 16 units on screen at one time. This led to a rather infamous 11-monk rare battle in one location. A very difficult fight, if you weren't expecting it. However, with the power of the mighty spring engine behind it, we could organize simply massive battles. With an allied fighting force of 10 to 20 unit's against an enemy force of 40 to 60, that would make some of the battles very tactical indeed.
How to describe it... Average map size was around 16x16 squares, and had various heights and terrain, along with obstacles, and enemies. Everyone was confined to moving in straight lines, though you could move say two left, and two up, simulating a diagonal move. Battle is typically melee at a range of one square, though some units had two square weapons, and archers had quite a bit of range. Guns are fixed at a max range of eight squares/min range of 4.
Basically two groups of units go at it at a time, with a maximum of 16 units on screen at one time. This led to a rather infamous 11-monk rare battle in one location. A very difficult fight, if you weren't expecting it. However, with the power of the mighty spring engine behind it, we could organize simply massive battles. With an allied fighting force of 10 to 20 unit's against an enemy force of 40 to 60, that would make some of the battles very tactical indeed.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Yes, I'll agree that describes FFT pretty well, but it doesn't describe FM well at all. I wouldn't call front mission an RPG so much... but it was damn fun game. Those games kindof have thier own genre, role play strategey or something of the likes.Triaxx2 wrote:If FM, and SF are similar indesign to FFT, and TO, then they aren't true RPG's.
How to describe it... Average map size was around 16x16 squares, and had various heights and terrain, along with obstacles, and enemies. Everyone was confined to moving in straight lines, though you could move say two left, and two up, simulating a diagonal move. Battle is typically melee at a range of one square, though some units had two square weapons, and archers had quite a bit of range. Guns are fixed at a max range of eight squares/min range of 4.
Basically two groups of units go at it at a time, with a maximum of 16 units on screen at one time. This led to a rather infamous 11-monk rare battle in one location. A very difficult fight, if you weren't expecting it. However, with the power of the mighty spring engine behind it, we could organize simply massive battles. With an allied fighting force of 10 to 20 unit's against an enemy force of 40 to 60, that would make some of the battles very tactical indeed.
Front mission was FFT with giant mechs and big frigging guns.
I belive that the turn based version of Spring SJ had considered making were more along the lines of Combat Mission serie. That means you give orders to your units during a "pause", and then afterwards there is a 30 second "action" phase where the units carry out those orders and possibly reacts to enemy units spotted by opening fire.
So in a sense, I suppose you could translate for example FFT to it, but first of it wouldn't be tile based, and secondly you would give all of your characters orders at the same time (well, unless they would rethink the turn based version of Spring).
Personally I'd like to see the Combat Mission style of turn based gameplay, but I doubt we will see it soon in Spring.
So in a sense, I suppose you could translate for example FFT to it, but first of it wouldn't be tile based, and secondly you would give all of your characters orders at the same time (well, unless they would rethink the turn based version of Spring).
Personally I'd like to see the Combat Mission style of turn based gameplay, but I doubt we will see it soon in Spring.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
MAX will require resource transporting between buildings, though, and 3 different recources (metal, fuel, gold). Remember those connectors? And one well-placed shot from Ground Attack Plane can destroy a connector and render half a base inoperable by cutting factories from Power Stations. Not implementing this will lead to a loss of an important gameplay aspect.
Water platforms would be awesome in Spring (for those who never played MAX, they allow you to build any land structure in water)
Water platforms would be awesome in Spring (for those who never played MAX, they allow you to build any land structure in water)
