RPG Combat Discussion

[Aikaeli]

I believe I've never posted on a general gaming forum, but after a good bit of time with several games new (e.g. Fallout 3) and old (e.g. Darklands) I wanted to say a bit about RPG combat as a game-breaker, boon, and all things between. I realize that turn-based combat is prized here, and I too like it best of all, but there are still big problems with most or all games.

First, I want to mention several games I really enjoy but think significantly marred by their combat systems. I mention them here--I post here--largely because I know the Troika fanaticism and such of this place.

Darklands: This is a great game but as with many great and otherwise-great games I can just go to the inventory menu and use any potions, including healing potions (Nature's Essence potions), without spending any in-game time; and this makes combat extremely easy once I have decent alchemy skill and selection.

Arcanum: This is a decently balanced game for some techonologists and for mages who shy away from the Temporal school, but I enjoy temporal spells in any game that offers them (though in such games as Shadowrun (not the console game, but the pen-and-paper, MUSH, SNES and Genesis varieties), I often go for technology instead). This to me, given that I feel I must play this kind of mage, is actually a game-breaker, and that's sad.... That said, I'm going to reinstall the game and try the patch offered here if it does indeed correct Disintegrate and rebalance Temporal spells.

Fallout 1 and 2: These are excellent games, and Fallout 2 is perhaps my favorite, in no small part because the combat in each is exceptional. However, here as almost everywhere else in the turn-based world there exist certain problems. Clearly we are not meant to think of a "turn" as a single thread of action so immediate and fluid as to interrupt all others: we can step out of cover, take 2 or more shots with a pistol (even a plasma or gauss pistol), and duck back into cover. Our followers and enemies, if there AI were strong enough, would be wise and exploitative enough to do the same. This seems a problem with any turn-based system that allows multiple actions without clear rationale. A hypothetical rationale might be the D&D Time Stop spell a la the Baldur's Gate games, or Wired Reflexes in Shadowrun (if one is lucky enough to time his jump out of cover, his shot, and his return to cover), and so forth, but natural agility is certainly not enough to allow the kinds of caution we can exercise in the Fallout games and most other turn-based games involving obstacles. Moreover, the turn-based nature of Fallout inhibits normal use of cover--a device used well in some (real-time) action-RPG hybrids such as Deus Ex, and perhaps to best effect in the old Rainbow Six games (those before Vegas, which atrociously simplified the use of cover).

Baldur's Gate I, II, and expansions: These are pretty strong offerings in terms of combat, though I like most here think they fall far short of Fallout games, Darklands, Krondor, Arcanum, Bloodlines and so many other games in terms of being "RPGs" and finally "great."

I challenge everyone to name a medieval or otherwise preindustrial "fantasy" RPG that works well with strict real-time combat. Some might mention Gothic I and II and The Witcher, but I think the consensus would show that even in good games such as these there are many things lacking, a certain element of strategy perhaps foremost. This probably owes a good bit to the slow speed of projectiles and the lack of strong swordplay in most real-time fantasy RPGs. We can dodge projectiles and we can time slashes and such rather easily. However, even in a modified Morrowind, for instance, wherein projectiles are wildly accelerated, there still seems to be something missing. And I think this owes to the wide powers of a mage--who can use cover to buff and heal himself quickly before jumping out to hurl a fireball--who finally seems out of place in dominating a theme so rooted in swords as well as sorcery. Conversely, and perhaps more disappointingly, a player using melee can often kill enemy mages simply because they lack the AI to hide, prepare, strafe and such the way a player does! I realize this paragrah is pretty fallible, but I'm getting drunk and trying to write quickly so I'll leave it thus and go on.

Another problem with fantasy RPG combat lies in the stricly turn-based games as typified by things like Avernum. In such games the cleric can often "mass heal" or otherwise buff the entire party every round, and the general lack of "accuracy" tests (the likes of which we find in Fallout and such) makes every round's combat easily aforethought by a good player. Obviously there are exceptions! For a large part of Krondor, for example, I thought combat was pretty strong and balanced.

As it stands I think the best combat in RPGs has been found in strictly turn-based "modern" RPGs like Fallout I and II, real-time-with-pause fantasy RPGs like the Baldur's Gate series, and a few rare modern RPGs with good real-time combat, like Bloodlines.

I would like to see more turn-based modern rpgs that give fewer "action points" so that cover and such cannot easily be utilized at the end of every turn. I would like to see more real-time modern rpgs as well--games that really cripple the player based on statistics and make FPS skills less relevant than hybrid games (by which I mean games like Deus Ex); here my strongest example might be Bloodlines. Finally I would like to see true revolutions in fantasy RPG combat, because it is often weak. For some reasons developers seem to let the greatest fantasy RPGs fail in terms of combat! The saddest examplar here is probably the whole of the Ultima series! Invisibility spells, instant-kill Death and Mass Death spells, and the Blackrock Sword, among a few other items, make things rather simple in an otherwise excellent combat engine!

 

[Wyrmlord]

Oh, a RPG with good real-time combat? Yeah, I can name one.

Ultima Underworld. The damage you do depends on the direction of your attack, the angle at which you face the enemy, and the timing you take.

You have to press 1 or 3 to incline your character upwards or downward. Looking upwards optimizes damage on tall or flying creatures, and looking downward does it with animals on fours or bugs and critters.

And pressing attack by taking the cursor to different areas of the screen creates different forms of attacks. When the opponent is cornered, you can thrust on him by taking the cursor to the lower part of the screen. Pointing the cursor to the top of the screen creates a forward slash.

You can combine those two well. You can create a thrust to the belly or a swing at the head, and if you time yourself to the moments when the opponent is not attacking, you can do some critical damage to their vital body parts.

That, and there are hard stats behind the combat. Even whether or not your attack connects depends on your Attack skill and the opponent's Defense skill and the damage depends on your skill with the weapon.

For a large part of Krondor, for example, I thought combat was pretty strong and balanced.

Yup, it contains some of the finest turn-based combat.

 

[spectre]

Fallout 1 and 2: These are excellent games, and Fallout 2 is perhaps my favorite, in no small part because the combat in each is exceptional.

Lolwut? Actually Fallouts combat is the weakest part of the series, and IMO is piss poor on its own. Guys standing proud and unloading their miniguns at one another while 10 meters away.
IF you don't use big guns or the Fast Shot trait, it's only a bit better - you may decide - go for the eyes or for the groin (aka for the lulz).

Tactics system is miles, miles away, if only for the overwatch and stance changes.

If you want to see how to go about implementing combat, I suggest squad based strategy games: Jagged Alliance 2 with 1.13 patch, Silent Storm 2, Ufo Aftershock/light, Brigade E5.

Also, shouldn't this go into Design discussion?

 

[someone else]

Ultima Underworld. The damage you do depends on the direction of your attack, the angle at which you face the enemy, and the timing you take.

You have to press 1 or 3 to incline your character upwards or downward. Looking upwards optimizes damage on tall or flying creatures, and looking downward does it with animals on fours or bugs and critters.

And pressing attack by taking the cursor to different areas of the screen creates different forms of attacks. When the opponent is cornered, you can thrust on him by taking the cursor to the lower part of the screen. Pointing the cursor to the top of the screen creates a forward slash.

You can combine those two well. You can create a thrust to the belly or a swing at the head, and if you time yourself to the moments when the opponent is not attacking, you can do some critical damage to their vital body parts.

That, and there are hard stats behind the combat. Even whether or not your attack connects depends on your Attack skill and the opponent's Defense skill and the damage depends on your skill with the weapon.

Sir, where did you get that info? Cos the hint books to both games which describe the combat mechanics are completely from yours.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

As it stands I think the best combat in RPGs has been found in strictly turn-based "modern" RPGs like Fallout I and II,

Though their combat lacked depth. Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout Tactics both did this much better. Fallout was brilliant, but I don't think it's a model example of turn-based gameplay - combatants mostly just stand exchanging blows, there's no duck, crawl, overwatch, shots mostly don't have other effects than deplete HP's and using inventory mid-fight is kind of broken. However, in their defense, killing things is pretty satisfactory to a point, and the combat is instantly accessible.

real-time-with-pause fantasy RPGs like the Baldur's Gate series

Though all of which would be strictly better as turn-based games. Just compare them to The Temple of Elemental Evil. (Also, try Wizardry 8.)

and a few rare modern RPGs with good real-time combat, like Bloodlines.

I think combat in Bloodlines was horrible, especially against boss monsters. Good real-time combat usually means as little RPG elements as possible, such as in Dark Messiah or Deus Ex (if you wonder how DX is different from Bloodlines, it has better damage model and more tactical variety). I actually think The Witcher has pretty good real-time combat, it doesn't really test your skill or wit but dabbling with the potions, oils and such at least keep it from being monotonous (like, say, Oblivion or Mass Effect).

 

[Damned Registrations]

Turn based games are an excellent system as long as the player doesn't have any crutches like endless revival or multi target healing. Potential for random status effects and misses also make things much more interesting. My favourite turn based combat is from Saga Frontier, which aside from the above things, also had two other interesting features. One was random aquisition of new skills DURING battles, especially during more dangerous fights. Battles you were about to lose but for miraculously learning some super powerful unarmed technique that turned the tide are very memorable. The other was combination attacks. Not all skills could perform combinations with each other, and they had to be performed in order (which was based on your agility, but still quite random) and even then there was a chance the combo wouldn't happen. However, combo attacks were incredibly powerful, and combined with a limited supply of mana, made decisions concerning whether to try healing and defending to recover a better position or try for an all out attack before all was lost actually a relevant choice. Most turnbased games are instead about simply always healing to full and chipping away in a war of attrition you'll never lose.

Real time games tend to have the same problem. The only viable course of action in a challenging situation is to hide as far away behind as much cover as possible, and pick away at enemies slowly. Theres never any benefit for surprising the enemies that would make risking a close confrontation viable. Battles without options are boring. Choosing to hide behind the tree or the rock isn't much of an option.

My favourite real time combat with rpg elements would probably be from custom maps on WC3. AoS clones and Fate/Stay Night both have some very interesting tactical combat to be had, and the system itself is excellent- they make use of hiding behind cover and using allies/special abilities to scout, surprise is an important factor, and how you customized your character often makes all the difference in the world. I'd be thrilled to find a good single player experience that plays along these lines. If these guys pull that off http://www.demigodthegame.com/ then I'll be looking forward to their next game a lot (Supposedly a mesh of MoM and X-Com)

 

[spectre]

Regarding the war of attrition problem you mentioned: this seems like a d&d induced problem, whre combatants have 100-ish HPs, and most weapons deal d8 plus something damage.

With semi-realistic wounding and wound recovery rules applied this would be negated. However, if weapon lethality is closer to reality, there appears another problem - fights enidning to quickly, which flies staight in the face of the unwritten design rules of games, particularily boss fights.

Battles without options are boring.

That, and when you are quickly able to dicsover and implement a full proof winning strategy.

 

[JarlFrank]

Regarding the war of attrition problem you mentioned: this seems like a d&d induced problem, whre combatants have 100-ish HPs, and most weapons deal d8 plus something damage.

With semi-realistic wounding and wound recovery rules applied this would be negated. However, if weapon lethality is closer to reality, there appears another problem - fights enidning to quickly, which flies staight in the face of the unwritten design rules of games, particularily boss fights.

Well yeah, but what about armor? Armor could solve that pretty well. Got hit by a sword? Well, your chainmail absorbed most of the damage and you don't get a bleeding wound. But, oh noes, now your chainmail has a small hole where the sword did strike, it slashed out a few chains! Now your armor is damaged and won't offer as much protection anymore. If implemented badly, this would lead to hitpoint-draining again: only this time, it's your armor that has hitpoints, not your body. Well, let's solve that by including certain strengths and weaknesses for each armor. Chainmail is actually pretty good in protecting against swords. But use anything sharp and pointy like a spear, or even better, bow and arrow or crossbow bolts, and you can easily pierce that armor.

Adds a new level of gameplay, too: What armor will I wear when descending into those elven ruins? Elves use bows, right? So let's wear something that protects well against arrows!

 

[spectre]

Well, if you want projectile protection, you take a shield. Or platemail (-:

This has problems as well, we end up with a rock-paper thingie, which may just encourage save-reload methods. But I agree, that armor is a thing that needs to be used more, not as some kind of a mnor bonus, but a genuine life saving device.

Personally, I would favor a system based around the basic premises: one, two well placed blows end combat. End of story.
Now we explore the other variables - what does a well placed bow and end combat stand for.

First, well placed blow means you have to know where to aim, and have the skill to pull the shot off. This means a sneak attack/ambush is a perfect solution.

And what about a good melee? Same principles apply - you can flail around the weapon, but you're better off finishing it all quick. However, it is possible only if you, again, have thse skill to hit and knowledge where to strike. If your opponent is inferior, it should be easy. If you're evenly matched, you have to plan the blows, and preferebly tire the opponent.

Finally what does it mean to end combat? Not necessariy kill but subdue or otherwise incapacitate. Sometimes just slow the other guys down so that you may escape.

So to sum it up - I want emphasis on critical strikes (resulting from skill or ambush) and fatigue in combat.

 

[JarlFrank]

Non-lethal combat is another thing that would be awesome. Imagine you just hacked off the hand of an enemy in a combat system with locational damage. Does that enemy have any reason to fight on? If he's not the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, he doesn't. If he was smart, he'd surrender now and hope that he can keep his other body parts. Enemies that fight to the death, no matter how their chances are, are a retarded concept. Also, the player should have the option to surrender, too. Most bandits wouldn't care about the player, if he lives or dies. They care about loot. Give them all your money, armor and weapons, and they'll leave you alone. Sure, you're broke and don't have any equipment anymore. But it's better than dying in combat, you can try to improve your skills and later take revenge on those bandits.

Non-lethal combat, and especially surrendering, is something that hasn't been used often enough, if it has been used at all [can't remember any game that had this feature]. When fighting against human enemies, death shouldn't be the only solution to combat.

 

[spectre]

Agreed.

To be honest, bandits and how they usually are presented in rpgs do not make sense. They should minimise their losses and maximise gains. Should they choose to attack, it would be an ambush most likely, to make sure you're down before you know it.

Even if one guy stands on the middle of the road and says money or your life, the others should be iding in the bushes with crosbows cocked and aimed at your throat. If you're to much of a nut to crack, they should just turn and run.

On the other hand, imagine a typical Fallout situation - a guy in PA with a minigun - those sorry marauders should first apologise for attacking, then beg for mercy then run away. Simpel idea, but damn me if I ever senn it implemented somewhere.

 

[Fenril]

There is nothing particularly great and/or deep and challenging about the combat in FO1 and FO2, it was very fun thats true, it required some getting used to and there were tricks to survive better but deep?

Not really the body part targetting system isnt enough to call it deep imo, neither the AP system... Arcanum was even worse, a better implementation of a system like FOT might make for better FO combat, but even one with poor imagination could imagine lots of things that could be implemented additionally like more elaborate manuevers, actions with benefits that included an added vulnerability and so on.

It comes to my mind that despite turn based combat being valued in more classic western rpgs the percieved strength of turn based combat, ( that is for me to try to simulate the elaborate and complex decision making that each character has while thinking before choosing his actions) isnt really well explored.

So many opportunities for deeper tactical considerations on the players part, but none really fully developed in complexity, and yes with turn based combat complexity if well balanced can be fun and absorbing, and if isnt truly complex there is not much of a point to use a turn based system anyways.

Id much rather spend a good deal of time learning the finer points of a truly deep combat system, even it implies some frustration at first, then getting all the principles at first and then degenerating into exploiting the same old usually unbalanced options that im going to surely notice after spending some time with the game.

Then there are the stupid little western RPG trends , for the most part a melee character is used as an almost passive meatshield to cover for the magic users, the magic users are the only ones who get a decently wide selection of options, but usually even with all the spells available you will rely on the same spell or a simple combination of spells all the time except for the odd encounter with a boss or a creature with particular resistances to your spell/spell combo of choice.

It seems that even the developers that graced us with "great" rpgs, when it came to combat were content in giving us the trappings of RPG tactical combat but not real depth, I dont know to what point this is intentional on part of the developers, as in to not scare away potential customers, If this is the reason I think its a mistake.


After considering all this its no wonder some people lean more towards real time with pause, real time with pause for the most part allows them the same depth of decision but with more fluid gameplay, and turn based combat is viewed by those people like a boring and too laid back approach.
Basicly what I am saying about turn based combat in western rpgs is that if you CAN make it have the appeal and challenge of a chess game why keep dumbing it down to the checkers game level?

As for real time combat, melee and ranged, Mount and Blade while not exactly a single player rpg or in a classic fantasy setting, takes the prize easily.
This is worth noting mainly because its a system that could seemingly be implemented in a game like Morrowind, Oblivion or any of the Gothics, and make them truly great games in terms of combat, even if you keep the spellcasting element aside.

 

[mondblut]

All this "realistic" stuff is fine and dandy until YOUR character is targeted.

And then, it becomes a quickload fest.

 

[spectre]

You missed some parts of the posts above. It becomes a quickload fest ONLY if one bad random number generator result means Game Over. I am not pretending it's easy to pull off right, but here's the deal:

End of combat doesn't mean one side died. There are possibilities to exapand this - taking prisoners, ransoming, oaths of honor, other kinds of chivalrious behavior. Then comes regular mercykilling, perhaps one side flees, or we have a stalemate resulting in negotiations. All depends on the setting, and few have been explored in the genre.

Moreover: Being defeated oes not mean you are punished. That's usually the practice in gaming, only Torment IIRC had ONE point where you were rewarded with a quest after losing a fight.

Why not use it as quest hooks? Being dragged into the evilLord13456's dungeon? Whole games and narratives started this way. Being captured by bandits then persuading them to let you go? Perhaps a whole quest branch where in the end you become the leader of the group eventually?

Another thing - serious wounds and realistic recovery. This usually means wasted time - the PC has to refrain from adventuring. A punishment. Why not make it have rewards? Experience? Health increase? Possible additional quests? Or a visual reward, a cool scar for instance.
For example - your limb has been torn off. What can you do about it? Apply cybernetics (after finding the specialist). In a fantasy setting, perhaps this translates to a quest to please some kind of clerics or whatever so that they would cast that regeneration on you.

I imagine a few bits above made me sound like Molyfaux wannabe, rearding players for anything they do, but I think it's more about exploring unused possibilities. Without going over the top of course.

 

[Hory]

There is nothing particularly great and/or deep and challenging about the combat in FO1 and FO2, it was very fun thats true, it required some getting used to and there were tricks to survive better but deep?

That's what I find interesting. Even if Fallout's combat played out ridiculously from a realism point of view, it was very fun. Would adding more and more complexity make it more fun? I wonder if it even matters, since few games have reached Fallout's combat depth as it is.

 

[Fenril]

If you want combat to be solely and simply a totally predictable and unchallenging affair, with the point of it being taking pleasure in seeing your enemies squirm after each hit and then die horribly in amusing and rewarding ways then no, for fucks sake leave combat as it is.

Or like I said opt for some sort of FF tb combat, some sort of Realtime with Pause combat with a bunch of redundant options like in the KOTORrs or whatever. Or just have every turn based combat system be about taking your time to decide the special attack that if it lands will have the gory effect #312, the one you feel like watching.

Just because sucky combat gets somewhat tolerated when there is a good story, lots of content and choices, a good atmosphere and so on does not mean one should start saying contently: "hey its a pc rpg, the combat is supposed to be shite, just enjoy the roleplaying and cool stuff."

 

[Livonya]

Personally, I think the combat system in FO1 and FO2 was pretty bad. It could be frustrating and irritating at times. I can't see why anyone would want to offer those 2 games as an example of good combat.

In my opinion turn based combat is the best format for a party based RPG.

Though, I think turn based with an option for real time might be better so that during the simple fights you don't have to spend lots of time.

The best combat system I have ever seen:

Jagged Alliance 2
Silent Storm (which is really just an improved JA2)
Temple of Elemental Evil

Temple of Elemental Evil was horribly fucked up, there is no doubt about that. But the turn based system with all the rules and options was fantastic.

Mount & Blade has the best real time combat that I have ever experienced, but this system just doesn't work all that well for a party based RPG.

In many games the combat is just filler for the RPG experience.

My all time favorite RPGs had terrible combat systems.

- Livonya

 

[Chefe]

Welcome to the Codex, Aikaeli.

I'm going to jump on the boat with everyone else here and agree that the combat in Fallout was pretty bad. It could be fun at times, but then so could any system. It forced the quick save and quick load situation which made things pretty damn annoying.

I know I might be the only one here to say this, but I enjoyed Arcanum's combat a whole lot more than Fallout. Switching to real time to deal with rats and such was a blessing. Unfortunately the combat got in the way of roleplaying, since if you went tech, Virgil became a huge burden in fights.

I actually quite like Fallout 3's combat. Sure, it's clunky, but on the hardest difficulty it's fair. Real time is great when you're waiting for your AP to refill. Enemies and your character can take a lot of punishment, but it balances things out and you don't have to keep going through the save/reload routine all the fucking time. You die because you made a mistake, not because a random die rolled and said "Okay, time for an insta-kill!"

It's important for the PC and the NPCs to operate on the same level (well, unless the game is an aRPG of course). I believe the problem that most fantasy RPGs have stems from magic. It's either horribly underpowered or incredibly overpowered. In the worst case it's essentially archery without the bow. It's very nature needs a completely overhaul.

 

[Aikaeli]

Very interesting points! Thanks, guys.
I will post more soon, when I'm not so groggy.
The only thing I'd like to comment on now is the FO1/FO2/Bloodlines combat bashing.
I like the fact that if I go into a battle vastly unprepared I can count on a great probability of dying, even if I know a lot of tricks, because the tricks are relatively few on most maps. Probabilistically I should simply get critted along with any followers I might have. Now, I want to try Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm; thanks for the suggestions. Their settings are to me unappealing but I will try them for the sake of combat.
I love the idea of having deeper tactics - more "stances" and cover usage a la good strategy games. The important thing, though, is that the AI of different enemies is able to maximize the effectiveness of their own choices in these arenas, and variously! Radscorpions, trolls, and Nosferatu with 2 INT, for instance, should not be the best at maneuvering and using cover and such, but Enclave soldiers, Elder Joachim, and Prince LaCroix should be as exploitative as the system allows!
I would like to see more depth as long as the AI can reflect it!

 

[PorkaMorka]

All this "realistic" stuff is fine and dandy until YOUR character is targeted.

And then, it becomes a quickload fest.

Unless characters are replaceable enough that you don't need to reload every time one dies.

JA2 and X-com with minimal to no reloading (letting dudes die) = so much better.

You really need to think about what you're going to do or you'll pay the consequences.

 

[Kavax]

There have been a few RPG's with non-lethal combat, like the Gothic games (At least the two first ones, haven't played the third) where it was very well implemented, since NPC's had different reactions when you beat them up. Some would hate your guts (Without necessarily attacking directly), some would respect you more, and some would fear you. If NPC's beat you in combat non-lethally, they would take some of your loot.

Arcanum has some non-lethal weaponry, but it's pretty weak compared with the other stuff.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Also Fallout's combat was seriously terrible even for 1997. It was just pretty and worked well with the rest of the game, so we tend to remember it as being better than it was. I've been guilty of that at times.

Tactics if any consisted of walk out from behind a wall and shoot, walk back behind a wall or aim for the eyes or randomly get shot in the back by your retarded AI buddy.

It's not like they didn't have turn based tactical combat with more than one unit before JA2 and TOEE.

Pool of Radiance and all those gold box games 1988+
Dark sun 1993
or heck even Shining Force 1992 (oh god japan)
offered far more tactical combat than Fallout.

They just didn't have those neat death animations.

 

[fractal]

Unless characters are replaceable enough that you don't need to reload every time one dies.

JA2 and X-com with minimal to no reloading (letting dudes die) = so much better.

This worked in X-Com because except for Psi and Bravery the soldiers' stats hardly mattered. Stick a newly hired guy into the best armor and give him the best rifle and he'll be good enough for most situations. NPCs were also nothing more than a collection of stats - no backstory, dialogue, etc.

In Ja 2 it worked because there was a huge collection of readily available NPCs with varying skill levels. I'd usually hire cheap NPCs at the start and stick with them throughout the whole game (hiring additional expensive ones later). If one of them died, I could get another NPC with a similar skillset and experience level. Levels also weren't that important, you could get specialist NPCs with a low level but one or two near-maxed skills.

With RPGs where the character level matters a lot (most DnD stuff) this would have a much bigger impact. With newer graphics engines you'd also need unique models/skins and animations for the additional NPCs, while in Ja2/X-Com they used only a couple different models/skins. Also: if NPCs are as well written as in Torment it would be very hard not to reload if they die, just for their dialogue.

You really need to think about what you're going to do or you'll pay the consequences.

Thats true, but then you'd have to avoid challenging combat if you want to keep party turnover low - realistic, but not very fun.

 

[Fenril]

Aikaeli:

I strongly recommend you give jagged alliance 2 with the latest official patch a go.
It has an overall strategy focus, and its main focus is combat and more combat but it still has enough rpg elements to be immersive and suck you into the gameworld.

The combat system isnt mindblowing in principle but it just so damn well implemented and polished, also its challenging even in the normal difficulty.

 

[gunman]

Dark Sun had a pretty good turn based combat system. Simple enough not to turn it into a slugfest but sufficient to give satisfaction after a hard fought battle against overwhelming odds.