All Activity

The problem with Praetorians is that it gets chaotic in combat; it's very arcade-like.

RTT's use small squads (4-10 units) instead of massive armies (hundreds in RTS). This makes pathfinding much more manageable, since the AI can calculate individual paths without overhead. The player orders the entire squad; the internal AI assigns roles (leader, flanks) and positions, preventing the player from micromanaging each soldier. —According the AI. I more or less suspected this. Explicit formations and position assignment Manual formation selection: Before moving, you choose types like Line (horizontal, ideal for trenches), Wedge (V for flanking), Column (for roads), Cover (compact but spaced), or Assault (adaptable). Each defines relative spaced offsets, distributing units automatically. "Spots" reservations: Upon arrival at the destination, each unit reserves its offset position (with random drift for organic variability), preventing overlaps. Squad leader: Calculates the main path (A* on a grid with clearance-based for variable sizes: infantry 1x1, tanks large). Predicts its future position (~2s ahead). Relative offsets: Other members calculate short/cheap paths (limited A* 50-100 nodes, every 0.5-0.75s) from their current position to an offset of the predicted leader. It compresses organically around obstacles (e.g., skirting rocks without much deviation). Clearance-based: Precomputes distances to obstacles; filters invalid paths by size (e.g., tank won't enter clearance <3), avoiding jams.

This would be very cool to have for the (eventual) campaign. A separate screen where you get to customize your elite troops from a battalion and choose several for a mission. Obviously, the inspiration would be how Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War did these (called squads in that game). We have a primitive version of that with the "Battalion formations" checkbox. The issue with that option (and why it's always ticked off in my game) is that you can't easily micro-manage the troops in a formation. You have some that are heavily wounded and you want to send them into a Temple? Well, you first need to disband the formation, otherwise all of your units are selected by default. In principle, I agree. If we double-down on spam economics where all you have to do is make more units that are at the same time your workers, then there is an advantage to forcing them into battalions. However, if we want to scale back on the spamming, the battalions are useless. So, in essence, it depends on what the main vision for the game is. What meta are we striving to? Also, because we have CS ranks, we'd need to figure out how experience gain affects the battalions. Is it individual, or will units in a battalion share experience and rank up at the same time?

I wish we had these before the discussion reg battalions so it can be decided based on how they work...

That would be a completely different game mode. You'd have to create entire battalions. Like in Battle for the middle earth. It would also resemble praetorians in that sense. That's understandable. You would also need an AI that emulates the movement of an RTT. And that the formations maintain and fight in formation(single formation).

Mmm. We debated this stuff years ago. I'd rather battalions be permanent. Why? Because of the APM loss from the management required to band and disband the battalions. Battalions are supposed to free up APM to allow for deeper, yet higher level, tactical things like formation bonuses, flanking attacks, charging, etc.

Maybe because that was 4 years ago and my views and understanding have evolved. The way you approach things is very off-putting. What an idiot I was 4 years ago to not realize the two versions of the pantheon looked different!

Let's see... Battalions need to be flexible. The battalion could be disbanded. That would be an advanced feature. The difference between formation and battalion would be a cohesion bonus. The formation would be that a battalion is formed by a single unit type. For cohesion to work, there should be no more differences than experience.Champions and mercenaries cannot belong to the same battalion.Except for certain factions. There should be an AI battalion AI like there is an AI for units. As you can see, it's not something easy to implement. It should be optional in the rules of the game.

Yes. I'm talking about battalions between. 15 and 30 units (max). @Radiotraining: And then you get that personal "immersion" or "attachment" in how you can upgrade each battalion individually and make them unique. Add an officer, a noise maker, upgrade their armor and weapons, etc. Maybe even have a meta where there's a screen outside the match where you can customize battalions and they show up in-game available to train in the UI.

I agree that it make things a bit weird. For capture also I don't like that currently, if for example you surround a building with walls/palisades, a tiny breach is enough for the enemy to fit 80 units capturing. However that would hold true if capture stay at is, which won't be the case. Next release you just ring the bell and females will be enough to prevent enemy from capturing. Back to the meta where nothing happens before min 15....

Would be op. I would rly much would like to give a try to introduce this, along with other formation improvements like 'flexible' formations. If this PR get in (kindof a prerequisite), one of the two above would be the next thing I'll try to do.

It would work differently than Praetorians.

On the Formation control "No override" setting: Is this now actively decided that it shall be in r28? I noticed it's still in there. I'd vote against it if there would be a vote. The highest effect of formations are currently at the mining and capturing. And it makes no sense. It doesn't require much skill. The player only needs to know there's a weird setting and then set the units at the mines on a formation. Like you just need to set "fast mining".

At minimum we should have units assigned to repair a building then automatically repair other nearby buildings once they finish, like builder do build other buildings once they finish the one that they are assigned to. Or a stance that makes units repair automatically any damaged building nearby. Repairing palisades is a real chore right now because of the lack of such mechanisms.

I wrote "with their own root" so that they don't decay. If they have a small amount of territory outside their own space, then it's possible to build towers or whatever else that gives more territory, and then you don't need a Civic Center/Kleroukia. So way overpowered imho (except maybe in rare balanced maps : trying to build something there could be a strategic objective, while the opponents have the strategic objective of preventing other players from building it). edit : oh, maybe you meant the P2 garrisonned tower or whatever that I proposed ? For that too the balance towards resource gathering is hard to find, as I wrote in my original post.

By Augustus, I assume you mean Gaius Octavius the first emperor? Then why asking for a later version of the pantheon when it has been reconstructed by Hadrian ?

As casual player, I have to say that the game doesn't *necessarily* lack anything: visuals are really beautiful and keep improving each release and overall is a solid, reliable game that I like exactly because it stay true to the pure rts formula. Which is rare nowadays. But at the same time, if we are to improve something, I would also agree that the game tend to stale in the lategame part, because of lack of "extra" techs or elements that keeps playing engaging after reaching the final stage. I think Burrito is really onto something when he mentiones "dopamine effect" that comes with feeling of accomplishment. Probably this is an element that can elevate the game feel overall. What AOE did really well, was marking each phase with great visual improvements. You really have a sense of accomplishment after each stage, especially in how buildings looked. Something missing a little in 0ad. But this is all easier said than done: making new skin/buildings for each stage requires a massive effort from art department, extra disc space in the final download and lot of time to develop. However is an element to consider. With units would be the same, but I think even small cues, such as naming a more experienced soldier into "élite" or whatever synonym, could add this sense of improvement, like going from basic Hastati 》 Royal Hastati 》 Élite Hastati or something like that, to mark a difference between each improvement, could add to the experience of progression. Just a simple idea. I used to play a game as kid, Imperium by Haemimont Games. There was also unit experience there and a visual cue was their shield and armours would turn more and more gold the higher up they went. Maybe a simple visual element like that could also work without re-making every single unit? Just another simple idea. All of these are not "necessary" changes, but tweaking on this idea of progression can improve the game experience to the late stage. About battalions. While they may be interesting, I'm not sure is the only way to go. I really like the current concept of "soft battalions" that form naturally if you click a group of units, while keeping each unit singular. Maybe the same concept can be "hardened" with a specific button to merge a group of units into a battalion and eventually disband them. But the reason I'm not completely a fan is because I used to play also another game that combined this with rts: Praetorians. And the whole battalion thing, while being cool to play, it also bored me quite quickly, because it lacked another concept that is "human immersion". Big group of units quickly feel like mere cannon fodder and there's something a little special about starting with few units, or make them survive from an enemy or make them "grow" etc.. is a feeling of classic rts that may be worth keeping, while adding other improvements. I hope I could give some constructive opinions. As I said, is only a perception from a casual player. The game is already fun and cool to play

You could run the game with -conf=rendererbackend:vulkan

Amazing screenshots! It’s really inspiring to see how much creativity players put into building beautiful and detailed cities in 0 A.D. The attention to architecture, layout, and overall visual storytelling shows how far the game has come and how much passion the community has. Keep them coming!

Is it just me, or do these people above have bot-like names?

It sounds ambitious, it would be interesting...it would be less frenetic and more deliberate. Like a less developed Total War. I agree that the game should take the risk of ceasing to be an AoE clone.While still being an RTS. Real Time Tactical. There have never been many games that combine base building and tactical battles. In fact, almost none. Manor Lords...But it's a city building with RTT.

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks? Battalions

The dopamine circuit and progress. Video games emulate life. In life you gain happiness and dopamine from making progress. The brain of the competitor is different from most of people. That's why mobile gaming can be addictive. The feeling of accomplishment. An RTS is a step-by-step progression path. The game has mechanics but there's no sense of progress. There is no PvE at the start of the game. Overcoming nature and the environment is the first part of each game. The promise of these is to be a small and humble village until aspiring to be an empire. If the reward is easy to get, it's not fun. That's why it's important to nerf the economy of 0AD. You need a variety of modes and things that give that feeling of effort and novelty.