LINE (combat system) Puns

i usually turn most of the hud off and bind a key to turn it on when i really need to in order to add to the immersion. i am also willing to install any mod you might have to suggest and i also have a vr headset but i dont wanna playh vr rn

I've been playing Pokemon Unite quite a bit this week. As a first-time MOBA player, I really dig the combat system and how it fits so perfectly with the Pokemon franchise. Aiming and timing your attacks takes some skill, especially with there being a cooldown on those attacks. Being able to anticipate, dodge, and sometimes block (with certain skills) enemy attacks adds another layer of strategy. On top of that, you have to learn how to use the arena to your advantage, whether that be hiding in the tall grass or ducking behind a wall to avoid a melee attack. Abilities and held items add yet another layer of strategy that a good trainer needs to account for. And theres even wild pokemon to defeat! It all adds up to a really fun experience that absolutely calls to the Ash Ketchum in all of us. Making those split second decisions on when to dodge, when to use thunderbolt vs volt tackle, when to retreat, what move combinations work well in succession, etc.

That being said, I think this combat system is somewhat "wasted" on the MOBA format. Type advantages dont exist (I understand why they cant work in this format), the arena is always the same, each Pokemon only gets 2 regular moves and 1 periodic "ultimate" move, and the 5v5 can quickly become a chaotic mess where you're just mashing buttons and praying.

It would be so exhilarating to transfer this format to a "main-line-esque" RPG game where the battles are real-time instead of turn-based. The rest of the usual pokemon mechanics can be the same - gaining exp and learning new moves and evolving throughout the course of the game, catching wild pokemon, having a team of 6, 4 move slots each, etc. But imagine entering the first route with your starter pokemon and just running around the overworld lighting off attacks on the wild pokemon as if they were the "farm" pokemon in unite. No clunky loading of the turn-based battle interface. No clicking through a bunch of text at the end of each battle. Just perfectly streamlined real-time battling in the overworld.

Now, let's take that a step further and imagine having to figure out a way to get past a team rocket guard blocking a door, and eventually discovering that you can use your Slowbro's telekinesis to levitate him and get through (or any number of other possibilities based on your pokemon's skills)

And dont get me started with the possibilities for gym/E4 battles. Imagine each gym leader having an arena that is perfectly set up for their type advantage and

I want to preface this by saying that I love this game. The story, the characters, the interactivity of the world, it's all in a class of it's own. The game has an Overwhelmingly Positive on Steam, and it absolutely deserves the praise it gets.

I had two separate playthroughs, one with my wife on Classic difficulty, which we stopped in Act 2 around Driftwood, and a separate file where I played alone on Tactician. My main character was Fane, who I played as a mage. For compaions I used Lohse as a ranger, Sebille as a rogue, and the Red Prince as a Fighter.

I've completed or extensively played almost every other modern CRPG excluding Pillars 2 and Tyranny, and have a lot of experience with the older infinity engine games, Fallout 1&2, as well as Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Knights of the Old Republic, Dragon Age, etc. So keep in mind, that this is coming from someone who is very familiar with CRPGs in general, and that someone who played Divinity as their first CRPG may have a completely different experience or opinion.

Having said that, this is the hill that I will absolutely die on: the combat and it's derived systems are some of the worst, if not the worst, of any RPG combat system to date.

Larian Studios attempted to reinvent the wheel, and in doing so they created a system that seemingly provides more choice, when in fact it restricts it. Heavily.

The main pain points:

• Bankable action points
• Excessive teleport/jump abilities
• Revolving itemization/inventory
• Excessive statuses and stun lock type crowd control ability
• Separate armor and magic HP pools
• Unbalanced ability score system
• Multiclassing with no downsides
• Enemy AI does not play by the same LoS rules
• Everything is on fire, always

All of these things combined serve to make every single encounter exactly the same:

Bank AP -> Teleport -> Spend banked AP -> Burst damage to strip armor type -> Infinite CC

Enemy targeting is incredibly limited. Magic users will unequivocally target low magic shields and physical damage dealers will target enemies with low shields. To do anything else will result in the enemy using this very strategy on you, resulting in failure. So lets go over each of these one by one and how they not only cause problems on the individual level, but also serve to compound problems with each other.

Bankable action points

There is a reason that no other CRPG or tabletop does this. If you can in any way prevent damage for a certain

SIKE. IM SO GODDAMN HYPE. FUCK YOUR NEGATIVITY, WHATEVER THE DEV DIARY SAYS NEXT WEEK WILL BE BETTER THAN THE SHIT SYSTEM HALF OF YOU WERE WANTING.

Ive played thousands of hours of Vic2 and other paradox games. The micro combat half of you are crying about losing sucks. It's garbage. It's boring. The only skill involved is if you can click fast enough in MP and if you can manage to not gouge your eyes out in SP. I don't want new micro games. Theyre all the same. All of them- hoi3, eu4, vic2, stellaris, imperator. You cant improve on them. You just can't, they reached their peak a long time ago. Each time its just new numbers in combat you already cant actually effect at a tactical level and you just move stacks of units around and try not to forget about that one front line for 3 minutes because your units won't fucking do anything when 200,000 soldiers from India show up in southern italy unless you're explicitly watching and tell them not to just stand there and get wiped out.

Its obviously not just going to be air combat from hoi4, but even if it was it would be better than the military systems for the other games. 'Build troops, merge, then split, then move, then merge, then wait, then split, then move, then merge, then wait...' Fuck literally all of that. It's such an unfun waste of my life that I do because I want to get to the actually fun parts of these games.

This is definitely too aggressive, but if yall can jump to conclusions and shit on a theoretical system I'll probably like, Ill shit on the actual system you were expecting, because that one Ive seen for 10 years now and I at least know what it is and why its garbage. This shit theyre talking about right now, this is what I've wanted out of paradox games the entire time I've played them. l don't care if its not perfect, or even if it's lackluster, it's gonna be better than the actively annoying combat that is basically every other pdx game.

EDIT: I'm being quite hyperbolic here, especially about the 'sameness' between games. But they're all the same in the way that Call of Duty, Halo, and Battlefield are the same. Are there differences? Sure, plenty. But if I'm just not that into FPS games, I'm not going to have a very good time with any of them.

I like grand strategy games for everything that isn't warfare. Economy, exploration, diplomacy, politics, etc. If I could play Stellaris and put all of my ships in a big bucket for the AI to deal with, I'd love it. If I could play CK3 and hand m

Or rather maybe I'm just very particular in what I'm wanting to do and don't know enough games to draw inspiration from.

Basically I have a stat system similar to D&D's ability scores (though I only have 5 stats rather than 6) and use a similar skill system as D&D (though more condensed to stream line). This would be a d20 system (look, I just really love rolling all the fun clickity clacks, alright? The more the merrier).

But that all being said, I don't want the system I'm making to be basically a D&D clone. At that point why play if you could just play D&D?

I have an HP system that I'm pretty fond of. You roll for HP after every level up, much like D&D, however you have two types of HP. Your Standard HP (what you roll for) and Bloodied HP (Based off your stats and character size category).

Also have a different magic system where you don't use spell slots, but rather a "mana pool" (not the technical name I'm using in the system, but using that term for ease of explanation) where you mark off how much MP (magic points) you spent casting said spell. It's a spontaneous magic casting system. You don't have to memorize spells daily, you just have your spells known and can cast whatever ones you want as long as you have the MP to facilitate that.

However where I'm having some trouble is how combat itself would function. I do like the initiative system, but can 100% do without it for a more free form system, but then I worry about how hard it would be manage to remember who has gone and who hasn't gone without spending a lot of time writing that down. At least for me I would have a very hard time GMing a more freeform system just because my brain doesn't work that way 99% of the time (ADHD and Autistic so, can be a bit of a bitch to juggle running a combat scenario and not accidentally skipping someone due to not having an initiative list to remind me who's up).

So assuming I keep the initiative system I have (not the same as D&D), but since that isn't the meaty part of combat that I need assistance with, I wont go into details. That and I want to keep some things close to the chest.
What I'm trying to figure out is how to make a combat system that is less crunchy than D&D that could speed up combat cause D&D can take all damn session to do a combat scenario and that's less satisfying for a GM and players that don't prefer combat. SO want to maintain a balance so that the combat folk can enjoy combat, but the Rol

It doesn't have to be real real, but the less abstract feeling the better. I'd like the weapons to be more different than just what dice to roll. I'd like to see some more reasonable choices like the spear being the top weapon in an open field rather than weakest starter weapon, and swords only having an advantage once indoors or in some other less open space. I'd like so see some differentiation between what works in a duel versus what works in an infantry line. So I'd like to see an arming sword and buckler be better than a zweihander, one on one. I'd like every prepared adventurer to have something to throw, fling, or shoot at an enemy and the rush into melee combat only starting once that's working against one of the sides. I wouldn't mind seeing endurance being a larger factor, such as just letting an opponant wear themselves out so you can then come in for an easy kill.

For some examples of nice touches there's the Outward video game rpg where you carry a backpack and either drop it at the start of combat or fight hampered with the extra weight slowing you down.

There's also an old obscure TTRPG called Adventure Maximum that has some of these elements. Instead of people having more or fewer hitpoints everyone has a 10 point track that represents 100% to 0% in 10% increments. Although taking hits will reduce that amount, the real point of any hit is what effect it has. Does it stagger your opponant, does it double them over in pain, does it cause them to drop what they're holding. That's the goal/target in a fight, since once someone is reasonably incapacitated it only takes a coup de grace to finish them off. Any suggestions?

And for the sake of consistency- would you have such an outcry over an EU4 release if it happened today? Because the combat there is extremely easy and linear.

Sure, on release, we would be dazzled by the endless possibilities of EU4 combat- province by province movement, cav and inf compositions, sieging forts etc., with different idea groups to choose from,

But when it comes down to it, as every EU4 player knows, all small-medium size countries play the same, basically every game. You run around with the doom stack either hunting the enemy which you outnumber or out perform in stats, or spend three years clicking your troops on different forts praying the enemy’s ticks don’t progress. Coupled with ai cat and mouse path finding, the combat is boring at best and frustrating at worst.

I would even postulate that more so than viciii, eu4 is predetermined before war even starts, since the ai takes maritime whilst you go quantity- Or even worse- eu4’s version of “combat as extension of diplomacy” is having your opm ally a world power and wait for favours to rise until you can curb stomp your neighbours.

They didn’t even try to keep the one interesting logistical aspect to the game- attrition- which was the main killer in war during that period. The cap on attrition got added in an early patch of the game, removing any semblance of defensive gameplay.

All meta and war strategy decisions that eu4 has the player make, such as how much money to invest in military, or rolling again for a better general in exchange for mil points etc. Will be done much better in vic.

I will admit that the warfare may not be great- but definitely not terrible. The focus of viciii was never going to be the combat so it’s perfectly fine that they saw it as an extension of war. I’d rather have a basic mechanic that works well and does its job than another badly put micro manager which will have problems down the line.

Simple decisions like defensive or offensive mode will have huge outcomes- sometimes, less is more. In hoi4, everything has such an incremental impact on combat to the extent that nothing really matters. You don’t win the war because Rommel is a great military tactician: you win because his +10% breakthrough is a part of a 5% from military doctrine, 10% from preparation, and 15% elsewhere. Not having him isn’t a big deal.

There is still a great amount of potential. Choosing generals is going to be quite in depth, and I feel like military technologies will p

I've wanted to create a super simple RPG for years but I'm intimidated by player expectations of intricate systems. Part of me feels I should just make a visual novel, but the game I would love to create is simply not the point-and-click, text-centric approach of VNs.

When I think about the game I want to make, I think about a 2D version of something like Life is Strange or Detroit: Become Human. Games where there's definitely active movement of the character and exploration of the environment to add depth to the story. Combat is pretty minimalist in these games. Even DBH relied on QTEs for action scenes.

I'd love to make a 2D exploration & narrative-focused game like that, but is there a certain word for that type of game that I should know about? I saw someone describe an rpg on itch.io once as an "explorative RPG" but haven't gotten the chance (yet) to play it and see if that's exactly the word I'm looking for here.

I have concerns about player expectations for the RPG genre. My fear is that I'll make this game but market it to the wrong crowd if I called it an RPG and it'll only wind up being panned because it didn't have anything innovative about the combat system. I feel like I'm too biased to have a fair opinion on this issue because 90% of the time, I play RPGs for the story more than the gameplay (but I'll definitely say a good system adds to the fun, but that's just icing on the cake to me personally.)

I keep thinking about how much I love super simple pixel RPGs but I feel like every one I've played recently had at least one gimmick. Even Undertale, as popular as it is, was a simple system but had a somewhat unique system.

LISA: The Painful is another one I love and wouldn't mind modeling loosely after but if I remember right, even that game had some mechanics unique to it? (Basically, it wasn't a total Earthbound clone.)

Anyway, I figured I'd ask here in case someone has insight from the perspective of having more experience doing this and/or maybe anecdotes from classes if they had game development in school.

TL;DR

In a game that's walking the line between visual novel and 2D rpg, is an ultra bare-bones combat system a setup for failure?

Would it be a smoother move to just nix the simple rpg combat all together and just let it be exploration-focused and have action scenes more dependent on the player's narrative choices than factors like accrued exp/stats and battle choices?

If, in the case I ultimately decided to create th

It feels like a nice middle ground between challenge and style. It wasn't like the easy counter kill + killstreak until pile of bodies we had from ACB - AC:Rogue, and still retained the beautiful and varied finisher animations unlike the current games. It was challenging in that you couldn't mash the parry/dodge button and expect to win, but was rewarding and satisfying when you manage to land parries and finish off enemies quickly. Aside from the endless shooting and cheap sniper damage, I felt it was AC combat at its peak - you were punished for charging in like a madman but you had the finesse and style of a well-trained agent of the shadows.

Thoughts?

Hey all wanting to hear some opinions of a system I am looking to implement.

Quickest run down on the relevant information.

System is evolving dice, so players will use all dice at mixed times.
The higher the player/skill levels, the more, and larger their dice will be.

Level 1 players roll 1D4
Level 2 2D4
Level 3 3D4
Level 4 4D4
Level 5 3D4 + 1D6
Etc

When in combat, I am looking to have all elements give bonuses into different areas.

1. Player combat level
2. Weapon level
3. Environmental level

In combat players will have three different elements to build their dice pool.

Player combat level will go up as it is earned, and will remain mostly static
Weapon level will be static to the weapons, with some spell/potion modifiers
Environmental levels will change drastically based on the situation at hand, and how the player interacts with the environment.

In combat players will add them together to get their dice pool, and a combat may look like the example below.

Player combat level: 3
Weapon level: 5
Environmental level: 2

Total dice rolled:
8x D4
1x D6

While the first two are simple addition based on the character sheet, the third element is the complicated one.

The Environmental factors can be anything from shooting an arrow through a fire, to leaping off a ledge to improve your hammer attack, to sneak damage.
I really want this environmental factor to be what encourages players to be adventurous with their combat decisions, but I just don't know how to make a standard system for this.

Like shooting an arrow through a fire, does it add 1 level or 2, is this something that I can leave to the players/gm to decide upon, or do I need to have clear examples to act as guide lines?

I've always had the suspicion that terrain modifiers in Europa Universalis 4 aren't nearly as important as they were historically. But that was just my opinion so I tested it to make sure using the "scientific method" (very leniently). So here it goes:

1.) Observation: I can ignore the terrain penalties, at least in singleplayer mode

2.) Hypothesis: Terrain penalties aren't very significant

3.) Prediction: If the hypothesis is true, luck will be more important than tactics

4.) Experiment: I created two identical custom nations that both had the required provinces – grasslands on both sides for the control samples and a grasslands-mountains connection for the test itself.

Neither nation had any combat modifiers and both had the same 4 inf + 2 cav army composition with no general. I gave both 5000 ducats and turned off the AI so that it wouldn't interfere. Then I moved their armies to the grasslands next to each other, waited a little for the morale meter to fill up and then declared war with the 'Humiliate Rival' casus belli. (Note: it gave a very small (+0.03) morale boost for the attacking side but I found it too insignificant to consider.)

After that I created a save file and attacked. I reloaded the save file and repeated the attack 15 times. After this was done I reloaded an earlier save (before the war declaration), moved the armies to the grasslands-mountains border, waited again, declared war again, made a new save and repeated the attack 15 times same as before. I recorded the losses of both sides in a spreadsheet and counted the times the attacker won the battle. The results are:

a) Attacker's stats:

• grasslands: 2511.2 casualties on average, 5 battles won
• mountains: 2568.13 casualties on average, 5 battles won

d) Defender's stats:

• grasslands: 2180 casualties on average
• mountains: 1857 casualties on average

Further observations: there were battles where the attacker suffered significantly more and the defender significantly less casualties, even though most of the time there wasn't much difference between the two terrain types. Other than that the sample size of 15+15 battles proved to be less than what we need to determine exactly how much the terrain penalties matter. (As in percentage-wise, right now the standard deviation of the results is too large for that.)

5. Analysis: The dice that's used to determine the base damage ("pips") in the phases of the combat sequence has 10

Each season we get a select few 'anti champion' mods for different weapons and it butchers creativity and individuality. It can make people use weapons they havent used before but that's not always a good thing.

For example this season is making me use bows and sometimes swords. Since launch IVE ALWAYS HATES BOWS.

Forcing me to use certain weapons to beat activities makes me hate this. Every time I'm forced to use swords, bows or sidearms I hate every second of it. It's not fun and it will never be fun for me.

This is the same issue prestige Leviathan raids had where you forced us to use loadouts and players hated it. This new system brings more leeway but still kills the fun.

Some players may like using any weapon but most people have a tier list of preferred weapons (not just meta). The further down the list you make us go the more we'll hate it.

My Background: I used to play 1st ed. D&D in the late 70s/early 80s - played for a few years, but stopped. After researching several RPGs to find something for solo adventures; I found Ironsworn. There's a lot of appeal, but even reading the book, getting advice on-line, and watching countless youtube videos; I am not getting it. I was trying to make a flowchart to help me understand the non-linear approach. I think I may homebrew my own combat routine. Any recommendations?

Hi all, yesterday I started playing with Dragon ball Z: Kakarot, but I am a bit disappointed. Even if I really like how they decided to make the story line immersive etc. I don't really enjoy the combat system. I remember with Budokai Tenkaichi 3, the combat system was a lot more immersive and "realistic", you had the ability to make a lot of different combos, decide in which direction the enemy should be thrown and with which force, and how to forget when you and the enemy use a kamehameha together and have to spin that analog stick to beat him? It was awesome and a lot dynamic. However, since then, I have seen the combat system become always weaker, like in Xenoverse 2, yeah it was cool but also there the combat system was a lot limited compared to BT3, where, for example, with some ability, you could also set up an infinite combo etc. What's your opinion? What do you think it's the best DB combat system so far? And why do you think they have changed so much the combat experience? Thank you!

This might be a bit controversial, but I feel most people who do so either are trying to use weapons they didn't build their character for, or have no clue about fatigue management.

On the first point, I love how Morrowind doesn't easily allow you to max all skills like an omnipotent god, unlike later installments in the series (looking at you, Skyrim), rather having you roleplay a certain type of build that you choose when creating your character. For example, if you want to use spears this time, you choose Spear as a major or minor skill, just as you choose an armor type and the magic classes you wish to delve into, etc. Trying to be a master marksman as someone who's used to swinging a mace and never shot an arrow before? Probably not gonna go as you expected.

And on the second point, jumping around everywhere and subsequently ignoring the existence of 1/3 of your derived attributes, swinging your weapon while completely exhausted, probably won't give great results either. Stack up on those nice energy drinks (restore fatigue potions) your Fighter's Guild keeps offering or learn some casual alchemy and make them yourself, ingredients are everywhere :)

Edit: this is not to attack on power-scaling related posts, what I’m trying to say is that the power level in hxh is at street level compared to the power system in Dragon Ball for example. Yes, power-scaling is fun but it can become ridiculous when you match up characters like “Akatsuki vs Phantom Troupe” which is pretty obvious that the akatsuki would win unless you try to imagine the Phantom Troupe’s power in the narutoverse or the akatsuki’s in hxh world, until then that would be a fair-and-square comparison.

First, I want to state for the record that I have been working with high power R.F. transmitters and countermeasures sets, radar, communications, deception repeaters and jammers since 1973, and am quite experienced with in-flight dynamics of VHF signal propagation from both low altitude and high altitude aircraft, both civilian and military. Now, the average person is not too familiar with voltage standing wave ratios, or effective radiated power, insertion or line losses, reflected power, antenna gain factors or for that matter antenna radiation patterns on aircraft, as I am. I have extensive experience in these matters and have the actual aviation experience in a wide variety of aircraft, with regard to everything from H.F. long haul communications to millimeter wave jamming or ECM systems, radar, and navigation equipment. For this discussion we are going to talk strictly about 130 MHz, not 2 MHz, not 17 GHz, and the beam pattern and directionality and effective ranges of these systems on both commercial and military aircraft, both below and above the 12,500 pound weight category.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with path loss nomographs for 130 MHz, I would like you to make it a point to study the diagram below. Notice that no assumption is made for effective radiated power, or system gain factors, and there is a reason for this.

• Path Loss Nomograph

This diagram is shown to illustrate the fact that, contrary to assertions by JREF and Unexplained Mysteries bloggers, radio waves do not just "keep on propagating" outwards at their original radiated power levels, without being attenuated over distance. When the path losses and other factors exceed the transmitter power and effective radiated power, as well as minimum discernible signal sensitivity of the receiver system, on any radial from the aircraft, and any angle of incidence, there is no possible communication then. Does this mean that the signals just stop moving thru space? Absolutely not.

But what this does mean is that as the distance increases to a point whereupon the signal power level decays below any possibility of detection by even triple conversion receivers with very selective front end circuitry that have incredibly high (-148 dBm or thereabouts) minimum discernible signal capture capability (which ACARS does not, nominally have, at it’s fairly robust –107 dBm), then beyond that range, detection and demodulation by any terrestrial, high gain

In other paradox titles like eu4 or hoi4, player has agency to control individual military units. Because of this, war is mostly tactical, where in pvp battles players who quickly analyse and make short term decisions in multiple places, usually gain advantage. Of course, there's also some strategy, but mostly it happens before the war starts. This type of combat is great, especially for game like hoi4, to reflect war of maneuver. It has potential to create exciting gameplay, all paradox fans know and love.

Some players here therefore are sceptical of new combat system in vic3, as it no longer will grant player total agency they know from other titles. Some say that it may be too simplistic, lacking depth, will require no skill and be terrible for multiplayer, as it will not be able to recreate this exciting warfare from other titles. I think that one cannot be further from the truth (of course if developers do a system right).

To show what I mean, look at the boardgame Diplomacy. To win, player have to controll over 50% of victory points. Each victory point can support one additional unit. Game has only two unit types (army and navy) and 4 basic moves (hold, move/attack, support, convoy). In each turn, players order units at the same time. if tile is free, unit can enter it. If tile controlled by other player, or if two players want to enter at the same free tile, there's a battle. Winning side is the one who has more support, while when it's equal, either defender wins or there's a stalemate. These are simple rules and it's one of the best, and most engaging war games ever created.

When most players are reasonably skilled, no one can win the game alone, which forces players to actively engage in diplomacy, creating alliances, coorinate attacks, build tust to break it in a moment of opportunity.

Why I talk about this boardgame? Because I see srong resemblance and inspiration in vic3. I think that when it comes to vic3, such combat system would perfectly fit the era. Therefore if developers do things right, I think that vic3 will be best pdx multiplayer game ever. War still will reward skill, but in different areas compared to other titles. Where in other pdx games diplomacy is useful, it's still optional, while here it may be essential core of warfare (as extension of diplomacy).

That's why I think new combat has great potential, and I'm waiting for the game to see if it works as intended

If some dev is reading this, have you actually been ins

I'm looking for an Action RPG that involves a team of characters like many traditional RPGs or jRPGs, but seemingly rare in the aRPG world. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Star Ocean games, Kingdom Hearts I & II (only KH games I've played), or Rogue Galaxy. I enjoyed The Witcher III and Cyberpunk 2077, despite the bugs , but don't always enjoy their solo combat.

My time is limited these days.... working odd hours and different jobs. So I'm looking for a fun/innovative combat system. The thought of mindlessly grinding to level up, or even just bland/repetitive combat, horrifies me at the moment. My life is a grind, I don't need my entertainment to be a grind, too.

I'd really like something with an engaging storyline as well. I could use some escapism in my life.

Bonus points if the game is available on the Switch.

Hi There,

I’m new to DMing, and it has all been going pretty smoothly except that I have one experienced player that is always talking over people. Outside of combat, we’ve been running “freestyle” with turns and some of my players do not get the space to explore as much. He feels this allows the story to progress in a more engaging way for the players. But I think I need more boundaries for him.

I’ve thought about creating an exploration initiative roll, after each battle. Then rolling an encounter or whatever else.

I wonder how others would handle this side of DMing?

First, I have access to all PlayStation iterations and a 3ds.

After playing The Last Remnant most of last year, I am having a hard time finding a new jrpg to play.

I tend to like hard games with complex tactical systems, though for some reason not straight srpgs.

Games I like - the last remnant, soul nomad, natural doctrine, stranger of sword city, FFxiii (I liked how they turned obvious attack/heal moves into the meta paradigm choices), anything SMT especially Nocturne, Resonance of Fate, etc.

I'm not looking for hard or complex for the sake of hard or complex, but rather combat systems which attempt to bring something new and tactical into the mix. I do like hard, tho - Covenant 2 had a lot of systems in place, including team construction and placement... But was so easy you could win blindfolded. And labyrinth of refrain tried to bring army building to drpgs but was incredibly boring in it's attempt.

Any suggestions?

I remember playing dragon nest for about 5 years and I just can't come to any game close to that combat system. The animation, the use of iframes in combat, the dynamic boss fights. It's surprising to think that game came out in 2010, considering it's been almost 12 years now there still isn't a game that comes close. Most mmo's seem to have point and click combat other than BDO being slightly close.

I'm currently replaying AC Unity again and I booted AC Valhalla for the Ottoman Brotherhood challenge.

And switching from Unity's combat system where you have to focus a little bit whenever you are surrounded by multiple enemies made me realize how the combat in AC Valhalla is quite easy - which is ironic for a game whose main marketing point was the combat.

Given the tools at your disposal:

- time slowing down every time you dodge perfectly (which is not uncommon once you get the timing)

- overpowered abilities that make you literally jump in the air

- you can heal up to 6 times while fighting and enemies sometimes drop rations - without taking the fact that there's an ability that makes you recover health after a short time

- weakening an enemy by hitting his weak points - which in 95% of the cases enables you to kill him without even fighting

And even without using any of these tools and with the level scaling option activated, enemies often die in 4 hits without even trying to dodge/parry or having the time to attack.

It makes combat absolutely trivial and not fun to engage with.

I was wondering if anybody else feels the same

Hi guys!

I was waiting for NSB release and announcement for a loooong time and i was waiting every second before release.

NSB is a great DLC, a huge amount of content, with new mechanics, ...bugs? etc etc....

But i got an huge problem, i know the meta has changed but now the AI always kill me. There is no way for me to win!

Pre Barbarossa

So here a screen of my defences for exemple against Germany, first game historical because feels like no-historical is broken.

All my industry was based on backstages states nearby my defence line, so i have done my defence like before NSB and for maybe 2 months, was very succesfull.

Right after Barbarossa starts

So as you can see on this screen, everything was "fine" on my side. I have destroyed all my Western territories in a attempt to slow down the Axis and make them weaker. Everything was looking fine but realy. My supplies was green since i have learned a little bit how it works, and i haven't got any pop-up saying that i was in trouble. I was great in industry since all my mils was in eastern states right next to the frontline which i wasn't exept to move, or a little bit to some weak spots that i know.

Then... everything will advance very quick, and after that point im 1000% sure that the game is lost.

Right after some WW1 offensives from German, they managed to push my defence line i don't know how and then, they were unstopable.

Firstly, it was around Kiev that the German succesfully pushed, a spot i used to know because it was mainly where the Germans pushed before NSB, then Kiev. at that moment i was "Okay, Kiev is lost, but that's not the end" then... it started to pushes... everywhere.

The main infantry template i had used

So here my infantry template. Since the old 20w meta is dead, i have heard that "26" was the new meta. Im pretty sure that template isn't very good but i was rekted by german so hard... NSB is still very recent but how it is possible to win against t

Witch is your favourite? Why? Should they return to some of these? Or maybe a completely new / different system?

Ps. Tried to include all but only 6 options so it's by system + evolution of that type of combat)

View Poll

First, I want to state for the record that I have been working with high power R.F. transmitters and countermeasures sets, radar, communications, deception repeaters and jammers since 1973, and am quite experienced with in-flight dynamics of VHF signal propagation from both low altitude and high altitude aircraft, both civilian and military. Now, the average person is not too familiar with voltage standing wave ratios, or effective radiated power, insertion or line losses, reflected power, antenna gain factors or for that matter antenna radiation patterns on aircraft, as I am. I have extensive experience in these matters and have the actual aviation experience in a wide variety of aircraft, with regard to everything from H.F. long haul communications to millimeter wave jamming or ECM systems, radar, and navigation equipment. For this discussion we are going to talk strictly about 130 MHz, not 2 MHz, not 17 GHz, and the beam pattern and directionality and effective ranges of these systems on both commercial and military aircraft, both below and above the 12,500 pound weight category.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with path loss nomographs for 130 MHz, I would like you to make it a point to study the diagram below. Notice that no assumption is made for effective radiated power, or system gain factors, and there is a reason for this.

• Path Loss Nomograph

This diagram is shown to illustrate the fact that, contrary to assertions by JREF and Unexplained Mysteries bloggers, radio waves do not just "keep on propagating" outwards at their original radiated power levels, without being attenuated over distance. When the path losses and other factors exceed the transmitter power and effective radiated power, as well as minimum discernible signal sensitivity of the receiver system, on any radial from the aircraft, and any angle of incidence, there is no possible communication then. Does this mean that the signals just stop moving thru space? Absolutely not.

But what this does mean is that as the distance increases to a point whereupon the signal power level decays below any possibility of detection by even triple conversion receivers with very selective front end circuitry that have incredibly high (-148 dBm or thereabouts) minimum discernible signal capture capability (which ACARS does not, nominally have, at it’s fairly robust –107 dBm), then beyond that range, detection and demodulation by any terrestrial, high gain