This is the continuation of my series on the themes that I most enjoy in video games. Today, I’ll be writing about games that include really good tactical combat. It’s interesting to note that 50% of the games run on Dungeons and Dragons rules, and that 50% of them are turn-based, while the other 50% are pseudo-turn-based. I suppose that good tactical combat is more difficult in a real-time environment. Although I certainly love Starcraft, I find the tactics in the games I’m listing here to be much deeper, since as a player you’re given the time to really think things out.

Pool of Radiance (1988)
I originally bought Pool of Radiance for my Commodore 64 because it was a Dungeons and Dragons game. Based on first edition “Advanced” Dungeons and Dragons, it allowed you to create a party of Fighters, Magic-Users, Clerics, and Thieves, and pit them against the kobolds and ogres in the city slums, and the skeletons and ghasts inhabiting Sokol Keep. The game was completely turn-based, and you could position your wall of fighters so as to line up your magic-user’s lightning bolt just right, or maneuver your thief into place for a x5 backstab. If you positioned a fireball just right, you could hit so many enemies that you’d have to sit and watch for nearly 2 minutes while the game reported everyone who was injured or killed. This was the first game I’d ever played that included truly tactical combat.

Wasteland (1988)
I didn’t play Wasteland until much later, but it took the semi-tactical combat of games like Ultima IV and V and combined it with the interface of the Bards Tale games. You got the “good graphics” (for the time) of the Bards Tale games, and at the same time you got the top-down view which allowed you to split up your party and move in your melee characters while keeping your gun-havers at a distance. It may not have been nearly as tactical a game as Pool of Radiance, but it was innovative for the time.

Baldur’s Gate (1998/2000)
Here’s the one that you knew was coming. Baldur’s Gate was the game that introduced the awesome “Infinity Engine”. I recently listened to a podcast interview with the guy from Bioware in which he discussed the origins of Baldur’s Gate. Twas awesome.

Baldur’s Gate originated the idea of creating a pseudo-turn-based game by allowing you to pause the action whenever you wanted. It also used 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons rules, which included a huge number of races, character classes, and spells. This allowed you to create a huge variety of characters and institute tactics that included ranged weapons, backstabs, area effect spells, trap laying, and more.

Fallout Tactics (2001)
I didn’t buy Fallout Tactics right away. As a huge fan of the first two Fallout games, (which were based largely on the above-mentioned Wasteland) I’d heard that the story in Fallout Tactics wasn’t nearly what that of the first two games had been, and that made me sad. This is my sad face. When I finally picked up the game, I found that they’d added a lot of complexity to the actual combat system. Cover and partial cover, the ability to kneel or lie prone, and complex 3d line of sight mechanics were all in place. While you could play the game in real-time, the pseudo-turn-based gameplay is what really made the game great for me. It worked much like Fallout 3, using an action point system. Although the gameplay could be real-time or turn-based, the action points were the main factor in whether or not you could do something.

The environments and maps in the game’s various missions were a big part of what made the game great for me. I was a big fan of the sneak skill, and I’d use it to sneak forward, plant some landmines, and then sneak my sniper up to a really good vantage point where he’d lie prone and wait. Then I’d have a character with a shotgun sneak up as close to the enemies as possible, perhaps just on the other side of a sandbag wall or embankment. Then I’d have a character pop up and throw a grenade, have the shotgun guy pop up and fire point blank, and the sniper would start sniping. Fun!

Temple of Elemental Evil (2003)
Temple of Elemental Evil certainly had its issues. It shipped with a lot of bugs, and many of them were never fixed properly. But the actual combat engine was simply awesome. As a fan well-versed in the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 ruleset, I found the options available for combat to be a playground. I could ready my archer so as to shoot at any enemy if he prepared to cast a spell, I could charge and get double movement for an attack, I could fight defensively for an armor class bonus, even make a five foot adjust so as to retreat without provoking attacks of opportunity. I can certainly see how these rules might take a lot of getting used to for someone who isn’t already familiar, but for me, seeing the rules with which I was already familiar implemented so well in a video game was awesome. The complexity in the rule system for this game probably surpasses any of the others, which is part of what I love about it.

Dragon Age: Origins (2009)

The tactical combat in Dragon Age took some getting used to. I’ve now gotten a better feel for how the game camera zooms and pans – it’s a little odd, but it can be comfortable once you get used to it. I’ve also figured out how to stop my archers and mages from charging. It’s all about the “hold position” button that I didn’t know existed.

I’m having a lot of fun sneaking forward with my rogue to place traps and backstab, positioning fireballs and cones of cold for maximum effect, and looking forward to a point in the game when I’ll be able to use spell combos. Controlling four characters rather than the six you were allowed in Baldur’s Gate is a slight letdown, but overall I’m loving the game.

And these are the games in which I’ve most enjoyed the tactical combat. Next week, I’ll be bringing you the final installment in my Variations on a theme series.