If they made BoS 2, what would you want in it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I'd go with:
-ability to use vehicles in any map you bring them into, although vehicles would get SERIOUSLY slowed down in some places on the worldmap
-more ammo available, quartermaster always has ammo, new ammo shows up in his inv every now and then
-ability to fire when running (hold down ctrl+shift+leftclick? or is that taken?)
-longer
-better AI, especially pathfinding abilities
-enemies attack you, instead of just waiting around for you to kill them piecemeal when you're attacking
-better animations, IE someone who you have knocked out with drugs shouldn't get up and fall down again every time you administer a new dose, your gun should be shown when you're running, etc
-4-man (or woman, dog, mutant, etc) reserve squad that, when you get into a situation where there will be combat, can choose to have with you
-bigger maps
-traps should have a bigger place, esp. since the enemy would attack you, making trapping doors useful
-weapons should have better range
-more weapons
-a wee bit more weapon accuracy, as in what the lack of which causes me to rub my temples and mutter "AK-47 carries 30 rounds of 7.62x39mm Russian, AARGH ARRGH URGE TO KILL"

and so forth.
 
I agree with the vehicles- it always annoys me when you are driving a tank which doesn't appear on the map you are playing on.
More ammo would be nice-especially 2mmEC.
Firing when running is a bit useless, except for cover fire (do you mean just spraying at a bunker to keep the guards' heads down while you run across?)
It would definitely be much better with a more "I've got a brain-type AI", which would make it more worthwhile developing a traps skill.
It is stupid that people who are lying down stand up to die when you kill them.
I personally try always to take the smallest possible team, because then: a) my computer is a tiny bit smoother, and b) you end up with less teamkills, so it would be nice to 'radio for reinforcements' or just call in the rest of the team from elsewhere.
More weapons will always feature in any sequel, but I don't see that increased weapon range would help ( with better AI you would just be killed the moment you arrived facing someone with a gauss minigun.) :o
And what is the point in weapon skill with better accuracy? you never have a guarenteed hit chance in real life.
I think that it would also be cool if you could 'use' a barricade or trench, i.e. rest your gun on the lip while crouching behind.
 
I dont understand what up with the makers of this game. Fallout 1 and 2 make rpg made game of the year and all magazines rate the 2 games above 80% and they do great. yet tactics was alway written as OK below 70% and sometimes even 60% and people have complained forever "dont forget how they released it" yet still it is a fun game. but hell not even close to fallout 1 and 2. so to answer you quistion i would make the new bos like fallout one and two and then they would be smart and make tons of money. ect ect ect....... DAMN IT!!!!!
 
Fallout Tactics has been out a long time, and even with all the much deserved criticism on this site, I think it was still pretty popular and it still sells.

That said if they did do Tactics again, I would like it to go back to more of a RPG, but not all the way. That would mean more non-linear play, more independence for players. I would also like to see it go back to old Fallout standards in shaping the nature of the world. Things like city names, talking heads, multiple quests, the chance to become really evil, etc.

I think the notion of missions would have to be scrubbed and I think you would have to work more in terms of recruiting party members, perhaps you pick them up as you go along. I think playing more than 6 characters would probably be too many, but then you might be able to have characters that really are not combatants that are still important. Keep the specialization.

As for vehicles, yes, bring them on the damn board. If you have a tank, use the tank. But actually I think BOS had too many vehicles. The game would have to develop some idea on how vehicles can continue to operate if it is to have them.

Better AI for sure

Longer- absolutely.

Bad guys- go back to Fallout 1.

Seriously change the back story to be more consistent.

Fix all the fucking bugs! I am sick of this damn thing crashing.

I don't mind the story of a group of BOS getting lost and trying to make it out in the wasteland. I don't even mind the BOS as another gang. But I want more roll playing, more character, more personality. Battles, yes, but a story too.
 
Crashing? What crashing? FOT never crashes on me, and it's unpatched.

I'd love it to have a tree-based campaign. FOT's campaign system is linear. If you lose a mission, reload and start again.

I would much prefer, say, you lose a mission, the BOS gets thrown out of the area, you are possibly demoted a rank, you have to fight rearguard actions. Or you are ordered to try and retake the area next mission. Course, if it was a stealth mission, you're fucked, enemy reinforcements will be all over the place. If you lose a mission, you shift onto a different branch of the campaign tree. You succeed remarkably, shift.

In larger battles, a 4-soldier reserve squad would be so useful.

Also, psychology should come into play. Soldiers, enemy and friendly, even in your squad (your character would be exempt, of course), could when under fire become panicked (scramble for nearest cover), could flee (just run away screaming), or become pinned (stay where they are, get down).

This would make pinning and covering fire useful. You would have to be able to force fire for longer than one burst to do this.

Also, spray weapons should have MUCH less chance of hitting friendlies, and the cone would have to be tightened. I have had cases of MG fire hitting friendlies a wee bit in front of, and way to the side of, the guy firing the MG. It's ridiculous.

By increasing weapon range, I mean rifles have ridiculously short ranges. IRL, they have sniper rifles that can fire at targets several kilometres away. In FOT, the sniper rifle can fire at a target maybe 50 or so metres away. Ridiculous. All single shot rifles should fire farther, and do a bit more damage (why the hell does the hunting rifle on single do less damage than the AK or FN-FAL on single? This is even before taking into effect the fact that the AK uses a weaker bullet, which WASN'T PUT IN THE GAME DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT.

They should make queueable actions, so you could actually storm a building with more than one soldier. If there is a way of doing this already, I can't get it to work.
 
What i dont like in tactics is once you have finished a town or city...they are then useless. There is nothing to do in them and the people who you have saved dont do anything. They just stay in the same place and do not move.
That is the main thing that i would like to change.
The other thing that i would like is:
I know that FOT is not meant to be an RPG but if they ever made another then i would like it to be more free and open in the game play...like an rpg. A lot of the things that you get in tactics dont even help you...like some skills and ability's are useless..i didnt even need them once.
These are the main changes that i would make. There are otheres, lots of others, But these are the main ones that i would change.




This is not an auvoir but a bonjour to an ever lasting dream with out wakening....
 
>-ability to use vehicles in any map you bring them into

you can do it yourself by simply opening the level in your level editor and set vicicles allowed on true

>-weapons should have better range

for game balaning this thould stay the same, because if it is increased, so the enemy will be able to shoot longer range and HtH attacks become less usefull

>-a wee bit more weapon accuracy,

should stay the same because else it would become too easy to shoot, for you, but also for your enemies
 
You can bring vehicles on the board? Excellent. How to do it?

To be honest, I think bring vehicles onto the board would be making this game a bit too easy. As people have pointed out, once you get a vehicle, your characters are pretty well protected until the vehicle is blown up beneath you. Avoiding this by repair is advisable, but in the worst circumstances, reload.

However, if you were playing a "tough man" version, without reloads, and perhaps in CTB, that would increase the risk to vehicles, and make for a more interesting game.

The problem with extended range for weapons, or even more honest range for weapons is similar to the problem faced by players of miniature battles and modern weapons. Lets say you are playing a modern battlefield where one side has an helicopter gunship and the other has surface to air missiles- how in the hell are you going to create a big enough board?

If an M16 has a maximum "effective" range of 300 yards, a sniper rifle has perhaps 3x that, than the boards have to be huge. Assume that the average step a person makes is about a yard, than it would be impossible to be realistic. You would have to scroll across to find your targets!

But then probably the game shouldn't be that realistic. To be honest I am comfortable with the ranges as is.
 
I agree- the only thing you can do is go back and collect crap you left behind, but why did you leave it behind in the first place?

On the other hand if you complete a mission and have a good reputation in the community than they could offer you advice, provide you goods and services, even medical attention. Maybe recruit new people.

If your reputation is lower, they might not be helpful, might not give advice on future operations, or might even try to use you to solve their own grievances.

If your reputation is crap, maybe they try to kick you out of town, charge you higher prices, lynch you, or perhaps the prostitutes won't sleep with you.

More use of medicals would be nice, like in FO2 and FO1.
(oh and how about those BOS doctors, talk about crap for treatment!)

Actually I would like to see recruits sometimes leave. For instance if the BOS is moving into a new area, the recruit might leave. Or if the recruit takes enough battle damage, even after healing, it might 'retire' home.
 
>Crashing? What crashing? FOT never crashes
>on me, and it's unpatched.
>
>

Than you are the lucky one. I don't like to save (because it takes forever on my system) and when the game crashes as I am nearly finishing a mission.... AAAARRGGHH!!!!!


>I'd love it to have a
>tree-based campaign.

Could you image a "free-basing' campaign where everyone is high. "Holy Shit man, that fucking Deathclaw is talking!"


>FOT's campaign system
>is linear. If you lose
>a mission, reload and start
>again.
>
>I would much prefer, say, you
>lose a mission, the BOS
>gets thrown out of the
>area, you are possibly demoted
>a rank, you have to
>fight rearguard actions. Or you
>are ordered to try and
>retake the area next mission.
>Course, if it was a
>stealth mission, you're fucked, enemy
>reinforcements will be all over
>the place. If you lose
>a mission, you shift onto
>a different branch of the
>campaign tree. You succeed remarkably,
>shift.
>

I think this would be interested, even if there were missions. For instance, if your mission were to recon a given area, or secure a route to a particular area, that would offer lots of independence and different values for success or failure depending on the choices you make.

If your mission were to pacify a village, you could do that either by making the village friendly by helping resolve what ever issues the village has or by razing it to the ground.

The problem would still be the linearity and the broad definitions of what a mission is. I mean even in the RPG fallouts, once you do everything there is to do in a given locality, you can still go back but there is really little payoff. Some localities are interconnected (Gecko-Vault City, or NCR-New Reno-Redding- Vaultu City), but not many. But even a mission like "recover a lost artifact" might be specific but offer lots of opportunities for completion.

>In larger battles, a 4-soldier reserve
>squad would be so useful.
>

I think this would be a good mix. In some campaigns you might be only about 4-6 soldiers and have a lot more freedom. In other battles you might control more. Say for instance you have a turn-based squad level batter over a town, and then individual squads engage, it becomes more turnbased, or even CTB. This way you might be using more soldiers but can do both squad level and company level battles. However these battles would have to be linear- predestined- but that would be fine because you don't necessarily have to control the other players. The problem would be in the non-linear game play.

>
>Also, psychology should come into play.
>Soldiers, enemy and friendly, even
>in your squad (your character
>would be exempt, of course),
>could when under fire become
>panicked (scramble for nearest cover),
>could flee (just run away
>screaming), or become pinned (stay
>where they are, get down).
>

I agree and this couild make better use of leadership factors, such as charisma, reputation, even perks.

>
>This would make pinning and covering
>fire useful. You would have
>to be able to force
>fire for longer than one
>burst to do this.

That could be part of better AI. I know comparisons are bad, but I was really knocked out in Half-Life the first time through when the badguys would hide and and try to manuever around me, or when I tried to hide in a tunnel and they threw in grenades.
>
>Also, spray weapons should have MUCH
>less chance of hitting friendlies,
>and the cone would have
>to be tightened. I have
>had cases of MG fire
>hitting friendlies a wee bit
>in front of, and way
>to the side of, the
>guy firing the MG. It's
>ridiculous.
>

That depends on the weapon. For instance a submachine gun or a shotgun would have a large cone than an assault rife.


>By increasing weapon range, I mean
>rifles have ridiculously short ranges.
>IRL, they have sniper rifles
>that can fire at targets
>several kilometres away. In FOT,
>the sniper rifle can fire
>at a target maybe 50
>or so metres away. Ridiculous.
>All single shot rifles should
>fire farther, and do a
>bit more damage (why the
>hell does the hunting rifle
>on single do less damage
>than the AK or FN-FAL
>on single? This is even
>before taking into effect the
>fact that the AK uses
>a weaker bullet, which WASN'T
>PUT IN THE GAME DAMMIT
>DAMMIT DAMMIT.
>

I responded to this further down. However, with a rifle like the Ak and FN-Fal, the bullet tumbles more in the air, doing greater damage on impact. From what I understand, the more tumble, the less range, the more damage. On the otherhand a rifle, like a hunting rifle, is longer ranger, more accurate, less damage. But that assumes that hunter is taking his time to shoot well to bring down Bambi, while the assault rifle is being used to hose down badguys. Also, I think the AK and FAL fire pretty big bullets.

>They should make queueable actions, so
>you could actually storm a
>building with more than one
>soldier. If there is a
>way of doing this already,
>I can't get it to
>work.

Yep, To be honest I like FOT in CTB because its more realistic, fast and dangerous. However, its a pain in the ass to have people do two things at the same time.
 
">-a wee bit more weapon accuracy,

should stay the same because else it would become too easy to shoot, for you, but also for your enemies"

Whoops, misunderstanding, I mean as in the weapons are innacurate, eg on many weapons the ammo used, magazine size, etc is wrong.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-02 AT 08:17PM (GMT)[p]Better AI is probably at the top of the list so that enemies can have more complex defensive and offensive strategies. Maybe even some enemies that can learn to counter some of your offensive assaults. Then you don't get too dependent on one style of assault and would really open up the tactics theme of the game.

I would prefer the game rely less on firepower and more on strategic movements. This is the post-apocalyptic wasteland after all and ammo will not be all that plentiful. Let's have more "stone-knives and bearskins", spears and simple home-made weapons. That's not to say you will find larger caches of old weapons but they will fail often due to their age.

The ability to fully play as more character types would be most excellent. It is too bad they limited the animations of citizens, vault-dwellers, tribals, etc so they couldn't use certain weapons or armor. That is the one downfall of the 2d character animations. I would rather have them as fully high-res 3d so that you could take better advantage of different skins.

More diverse game triggers would be sweet so that people who want to edit the game can do something more rpg-like.

I really would love to see the game made with a fully high-res 3d engine. It bogs down quite a bit on my older system even though I have an impressive video card and lots of memory. I think it would be easier to make larger battles with more action if this was done.

The one thing that would soften your dependency on saved games would be to add a little randomness to a map every time you reopen it. So every time you opened a saved game the supermutants for example would try a different path for their patrols, or maybe the guards might switch to another weapon or another patrol would mysteriously appear.

I also would like to see time of day have a greater role in the game. So the raiders would sleep during the night or do different things at different hours. Maybe defenders could change shifts at a certain time so there might be more awake at that time.
 
I like the degree of weapon-ness in FOT. Melee and unarmed combat is really boring when you try it (like when you use a deathclaw), it's just 2 guys hitting each other until one dies.
 
Yeah they would have to improve the hth animations a little more, but I'm not saying to go entirely hth or melee. More basic projectile weapons would give it more of a post-apoc feeling. After all old gunpowder bullets are going to be useless and the mining facilities to make new gunpowder will not be that plentiful. Sulphur may not be easy to find. Bullets will be very uncommon and usually only made in one caliber. Shotgun shells will be easier to make given the availability of gunpowder. So most weapons will be energy based or primitive projectiles if you want realism. Now if you want flat-out fantasy then there is always Baldur's Gate or NWN!
 
Bullets aren't that hard to make, once you have the knowledge it wouldn't be that hard to set up a factory. Although I do think that raiders, etc should have fewer guns, and new initiates to the BOS shouldn't be issued armor or guns until they're proven themselves.
 
>Bullets aren't that hard to make,
>once you have the knowledge
>it wouldn't be that hard
>to set up a factory.
>


You are right that they are not hard to make when you have easy access to all of the raw materials. It's easy now to order the casings, slugs, powder, and an assembling machine and then put together several hundred bullets in a weekend. But if you didn't have any of the raw materials and had to make your own brass, lead, and gunpowder? Imagine trying to mine the substances on your own. Today we take for granted the thousands of industries required to make the things we use and millions of people that make things. A bullet or a gun require large scale mines, foundries and equipment manufacturerers. If you had to make anything from basic raw materials and a few basic tools it would be next to impossible. Understand that after a major nuclear war almost all of the industries would have been destroyed. Anything sitting around for a hundred years or so would have been rusted or inoperable. Alot of knowledge would be forgotten or lost. Do you realize after the fall of the Roman Empire how long it took to get things up to that level of sophistication??
 
I'd like to see the QM have more of some of the rarer ammo types. I realise that they are rare for a reason, but its really annoying when there are some guns you can't really use much because the QM is out of ammo for them and no one carries it.

A ggod example of this is EMP shotgun shells. In my game I had a room-clearer character who was esentially a close range fighter with grenades, a shotgun and a high sneak skill. He was practically useless in the robot missions because I couldn't get enough EMP shotgun shells or pulse grenades to allow him to fire much :(. I still kept him on my squad though because I liked him and he was really useful when I HAD to take a robot sentry out at close range quickly.

Sorry for the rambling :)
 
I think that the BoS would be able to make bullets. Plus, I'm betting a lot of the bullets in Fallout are prewar. I'm betting that before the Big War started, the militaries all stockpiled conventional munitions, thinking they'd be useful. Then the nukes took everything out. I'm betting the BoS, or at least the Eastern faction (the Western faction seems advanced enough to make ammo, since they can give everyone power armor) has found several stockpiles of old bullets.
 
mmm Kay, This is a simple one.
I'd basically convert fallout 1&2 Stuff into Fallout BOS.
Honestly, you can't do jet or become a made man for Jesus Mordino or any of them organized freaks. If You could run around in one of them FO2 Bouncer Suits on BOS, that would be like, damn.
BOS is good, i just got it not too long ago, and from what i know of it already it's fine and dandy, not quite as good as the Storys of FO1&2, And not as many Goodies (drugs, Hookers, Etc.) but they have much better looking items.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top