Prodigal Son

I don't believe formations alone would streamline the gameplay. Having to short formations and choose new ones under different conditions and that for several unit types (in an average army) will add much micro. Directional bonuses, running/charging, stamina will add even more. It all comes down to how it will turn out, we can't be exactly sure on what will be implemented in the end, but logically speaking micro will increase when those things are thrown in. Making the game pace slower could help (less dps or more hp/armor for units, reduced movement speeds). Edit: Economy in 0 A.D. is the least automated of all RTS I've played, maybe excluding early AOE with their finite farms, but on the other hand having more workers to manage, many economic techs and a rather fast depleting majority of resources, requiring quite frequent relocation of dropsites. I'd call rather automated economy the one of WC3, with it's only two resource types, very few techs, few big mines (with a staple of 5 workers per mine) and only lumber kind of needing attention. An automated example would be Battle For Middle Earth games, with structures auto-producing resources and workers only as builders. I can understand the desire for "throwing everything realistic in the combat system", I'd love that as well, but it doesn't work that way. Unless we want a game with a combat system mixing Total War and Starcraft (that's were it heads if all those get thrown in) and an economic management similar to AOK. That would make the hardest to master RTS ever, frustrating anyone who isn't great at both micro and macro.

For the Maiden Guard units that's close to what I suggested as well, though I'd prefer not having unit/ships train units. Yoddha is still having his crush damage, however a "swordsman" class siege weapon might be confusing while all other swordsmen have the same, different role and siege maceman sounds like a unit from a fantasy game (or AOE online:p). You've missed my point. RTT games like Total War are also turn-based for their economy/training/infrastructure management part, so in battles you can have many micro-requiring things and it makes sense, you have all the time for it. Some RTS like Warcraft 3, keep economy to the very basics, with few workers, few techs (even fewer economic ones) so that they can fit in "rpg" elements and active skills and population is also limited, you won't have to control more than 25-30 units on average. AOE games which have a bigger focus on economy had either no or very minor active skill micro (AOE, AOK), or reduced the economical focus by removing the need for dropsites and added buildings that autogathered resources to fit in some more (AOE 3). 0 A.D. falls closer to AOK, but with the even larger population (and even more workers) leaves even less time for micro. Would you still enjoy the game if every unit (or half units) had a toggle like siege weapons then? Wouldn't it be much different? If/when the game is redesigned around formation combat, we can revisit the discussion of what fits there (but that alone will make it much more micro heavy imo).

As they currently are when caught in melee, so it's the more or less the same effect, but requiring extra micro, changes and balance. From a realism point of view I can stand by that you said, but as a core mechanic I'd only apply that to a game that has extra developer manpower and a gameplay with enough time for tactics. Got what you said, my reply to stan just above is more or less my view on it (except from the micro part). Hellenic factions have a quite good rooster as well as many possible units left out, as their history is better recorded than most, so I see no need to add units they didn't have. I'm even for removing/replacing Spartan swordsmen (see op - spartans).

I'm mostly against having toggle abilities (or as least as little as possible). Some autocast ones for melee units who carried javelins could work, but this again requires extra balancing, of an easier kind though. Examples are roman, iberian and celtic swordmen, thureophoroi (the spear version - there were also simple skirmishers with a thureos shields as well as many other troops), thorakitai, and some heavy cavalry who also carried javelins or bows in addition to their main armament. Persian immortals also come to mind with a possible bow shot before going melee. Some of those units could be more hybrid ones but again, that's not fitting that well in 0 A.D. style gameplay. I wouldn't be against it if formations are somehow implemented in a way that make troop management easy. However all the best RTS have at most possitional formations, going full total war style might be an issue having to manage the economy real time as well. I'm eager to hear more about the plans on this, if what we know about running/charging/stamina/directional bonuses etc is outdated. If it's not it probably has to be simplified compared to total war games, not expanded with extra micro requirements. Ekdromoi were just light hoplites (spear/shield/helmet/no armor) tasked to chase missile troops for armies lacking cavalry and fight in the main line if needed, not hybrid units with javelins. The Maiden Guard should be just archers from the little we know, not meaning they noway carried a side arm, many archers did, but that they shouldn't get any special treatment. I'm not sure on ranged units having an alternative attack, most of them would flee or die fast when caught in melee anyway and there's again the hard to balance and extra micro issue. The infinite chase thing has been reduced due to melee units being able to attack while moving in the last couple of alphas and the ability to run away reduced to ranged cavalry. Makes some sense as it is, though no solution seems perfect to me. Edit: Ranged units seem seriously OP, especially for a melee-dominated era game. Imo they should get cheaper, weaker and with lower relative dps. The only serious advantage for training melee units currently is vs structures which I don't like. Structures can stay with higher pierce than hack armor, but a smaller difference and melee units get more effective in field battles. Only with vastly superior numbers could ancient ranged units beat heavy infantry on their own and even then it was considered an achievement. Old AOE games had the balance quite right on this aspect.

Yes, to reduce the number of sword infantry the Mauryans have available and have them more historical as well. The only ancient (even if doubtful) sources depict them fighting with bows, the rest is modern speculation. Also I'm against units trained from other units or ships in general, very unrealistic and often hard to balance. That would be great if it applied to all mercenaries, not just them. Also, as I've mentioned before, mercenaries shouldn't cost wood, at the vast majority of cases they brought with them their own armament. Metal as their payment, and perhaps food as well if full metal is a very heavy cost (they would be fed from the army's food supply) makes more sense. Furthermore, it's been suggested by Mega Mania that Ptolemaic era Egyptian armies shouldn't have Nubian troops/mercenaries and from what I've read it seems to be correct. So I guess this unit could be swapped by something else (possibilities at op, under Ptolemies). Having the option available for mods would indeed be great. But overwhelming the option screen with such minor things for the main game wouldn't be that good imo and balancing several such secondary options would be a nightmare.

I'm mostly against it as well. It's too much micro for an RTS. It works fine in later Total War games, but in RTS games who have it (like Ancient Wars: Sparta) it doesn't. 0 A.D. fits in with the RTS's that have an important economic management aspect, plus large number of troops, so adding extra micro of that form would be even worse than on most games. Added to that, extra balancing is needed (mounted/dismounted versions).

I was about to mention the Roman example in my previous post but I though I write too much:p. That would be ideal for some of those units (I partly disagree on some) and a few other I can think of. Then again it's not terribly bad to depict units only in their main roles, avoiding extra balancing (two different attacks per unit will be a pain to balance) and increased micro (active abilities).

Does this mean they should have unnecessarily many types of swordsmen or that their armies had a focus on swordsmen? They already have a tech in relation to that and I never claimed it should be removed. RTS gameplay design needs some clear unit roles, without needless duplicates. Since they have two identical champion swordsman units what would be the way to differentiate them? Giving them different roles is confusing, having them doing the same job is useless. And it's not like they were some iconic units of a very specific legacy that should stay in the game with their historical role for flavor. The one is named "warrior" and the other is a "maiden guard", which I doubt we know how they fought or much about them (the only thing I've found places them as archers - here's a possible fix, we can make the archer version trainable instead). Edit: Just noticed, Yoddha (warrior) might be classified as swordsman, but is actually armed with a mace and does crush damage. That makes all this discussion (partly) invalid, but raises more questions. Do we want a dude with a metal mace classified as swordsman while playing differently and more importantly, do we want a maceman as a siege weapon in a historical game? Possible solutions? Citizen Soldier Swordsman stays as he is.Maiden Guard goes Archer, as the unit already exists, and it better reflects the Indian focus on archery and the (doubtful but anyway) sources.Champion Swordsman (Yoddha/Warrior) either gets pure swordsman attributes or a new class. The former has the downside of treating mace as a hacking weapon, the later adds one extra class to an already hard to balance game. I'd go with the former, which could also include replacing his weapon with a sword. Infantry ripping through structures just doesn't make any sense and they have war elephants for that already, it's not like it would add something they miss.On another note, is the Ptolemaic inf archer intentionally faster to train and slightly more expensive than the rest or is that an oversight?

Mythos sorted many things right from a realism point of view. Still 3 infantry swordsmen for a non-sword focused civ don't make that much sense either realistically or gameplay-wise.

Not really, I'm just not content with how they blend with each other. And the steppe ones are overall lesser/older I guess.

It's the first one I've bothered making complete, the others were mostly to test units etc. But I've had a good deal of mapmaking in WC3, AOM and other games, so I'm not a complete newbie. Feeling encouraged is great though:) I kinda miss the AOM tileset textures with their perfectly merging edges, making anything look great. I could have used some better textured tileset, but the steppe one looked as the most fitting for the region.

I can certainly get all your points and agree with most of them. Rare units are ok to be in the game for me, as long as they don't throw out of the rooster more obvious ones. Still though, 3 different infantry swordsmen units for a civ historically not focused on them is an overkill. If I were to decide I'd probably switch off the female champion one, maybe replacing it as trainable with it's archer version if the Mauryan rooster needs some boost.

Thanks, although I believe it could look much better:)

Common agreements are fine as long as they are made at game start. Trade can potentially do what you said, but it also produces either short, ineffective routes, or easy to raid, long ones. It also reduces late game economy management, which is a certainly a good thing when you're spread all over the map and with many more units to handle. Can't remember if the increase trade tech is phase 2 or 3 though, I guess phase 3 would be better for it. I didn't say swordsmen weren't a part of their armies, I said I doubt they were a major part. From what I've read (I'm noway an expert on them) Indian/Mauryan armies were mostly masses of spearmen and archers, with support from cavalry and chariots and an insanely high for non-indian standards number of war elephants. Nice swords don't necessarily mean many swordsmen, they could easily be just side arms, at times only for some noble units. Anyway this was just a bonus thought, but for some reason those seem to grab the most attention. Maybe cause I don't bother to phrase them in detail. On testing units, what you said can work to a point. But on units with different costs, it's better to test units of equal combined costs than equal numbers. If the game gets further balanced around population (which it should imo - see op - balance templates) pop costs are something to have in mind as well, especially for late game balancing.

I tend to believe that performance is slightly better overall now, but I'm not really sure nor paid major attention on that. Btw, what's the issue with some people on multiplayer "forbidding" the use of trade? Is it considered imbalanced currently or just to reduce the number of constantly moving units? I've even come across a person rage-quitting because he discovered I used traders. He then admitted he hadn't mentioned it before, but the game was already wasted. I also noticed that now Mauryans might be a little op in the mid-late game. Having their spearmen equally strong and sharing the same upgrades with those of other civs, besides feeling strange as they are almost naked levies, lets them absorb a lot more damage than they used to, increasing the survivability of Armored Elephants and Elephant Archers, allowing them to decimate the opposition. I think realism needs to come into the game here as a balancing factor. Mauryans have 2 elephant superunits, for different roles, something that no other faction has. The one (elephant archer) only costs wood and food and is trainable from phase 2, so it's relatively easily massable. That's fine so far (historically and gameplay wise). But it breaks both combined with an averagely strong, very easily massable (due to low wood/food cost) line infantry. The answer to this is weaker spearmen, as in reality. I'd suggest nerfing/removing infantry citizen swordsmen as well (they even have 2 extra champion versions and I doubt swordsmen were a major part of ancient Indian armies anyway), but gameplay-wise it's less of an issue since metal cost reduces their massability, especially if you want to combine them with Armored Elephants.

One related question: In the current state of the game, do all participating players need to have the hosted map or just the host?

The northernmost border of the Seleucid Empire, separating it from the steppe tribes and as far north as Alexander's army ever reached. It's my first 0 A.D. map, nothing very fancy as of visuals, as that's not my forte and the steppe biome doesn't help much, but I believe it plays pretty well. The AI seems to like it as well, it was tougher to beat compared to other maps I've played on SP. I also noticed an AI glitch while testing it. On one of the matches the AI built many defense towers across the northern edge of the map, while obviously none could invade it from that side. The forum won't let me upload one of the two map files, so I guess there should be some other way sharing it. Thanks to niektb for explaining how to place skirmish entities. Edit: Thanks again, map added. Jaxartes River (2).zip

I guess that could work as a mod for 0 AD, especially with triggers being implemented. If you look for people interested in this playstyle, Warcraft 3 has a biggish audience in a very similar gerne under the name "Strategy/Risk" (at least on the modding site hiveworkshop), with a variety of options and tweaks between different maps.

Counters in the form of bonuses are not the only way to determine unit roles. They help for more clear to understand gameplay and make handling the combat part of the game quite easy, which I don't dislike, as I'm more of a macro player. But at the same time they limit player creativity and choice, since you just have to train what you need to counter the enemy and not what your playstyle or your current desire asks for. Units become more or less forced answers, not plans or smart use of their attributes in tactics. In games like Warcraft and Starcraft, combat roles are a mix of attack/defense types and unit attributes, with focus on the second, making battles far more dynamic. Different players will like each combat system, with none of them being clearly the superior. 0 AD though is more economically focused than the previously mentioned games and at first sight going with counters would seem more sane, to allow more time for the needed macro at expense of micro. (Which suits me well:p). However one minor reason to go with unit attributes instead of counters is that it is more realistic and there's a major one as well. When formations, stamina, directional bonuses etc are fully implemented, the combat part of the game will head more towards Total War style battles. Positioning, covering flanks etc. Pikemen won't lose to Swordsmen frontally when in formation. You'll win a battle for not needlessly tiring your units and making sure they aren't surrounded and pure counters don't fit well into that. Maybe excluding a damage bonus for spears vs cavalry. So I'm mostly for the second approach, at least accordingly to what I've understood as the desired combat system for the game. I have no clue though on if something has changed in the meanwhile and the game heads towards a more classic RTS combat system. In the current combat system, units of closely related classes can be vastly different. Look at Footmen and Grunts in Warcraft 3, two units with the same role (tier 1 melee unit). They serve the same general purpose of line infantry, but at the same time they are vastly different. Grunts are stronger, more expensive, take longer to train and are more offensive, while Footmen are cheaper, weaker, train faster and are harder to kill (at least relatively to their cost). And that's the simplest unit difference in that game, higher tier unit equivalents have bigger ones. Something like that could be used to differentiate 0 AD units, with differences to similar units accordingly to their role and natural attributes. Spearmen and Swordsmen can be almost identical in some roles while vastly different in others. The same holds true for Cavalry Swordsmen/Spearmen, I just said an idea that could reduce the already many classes, helping with balancing and one that is realistic. I don't believe they're the same unit and even if they are close to being that, it can easily change even with the current system. Cavalry Spears could have pierce or spear damage, with a slow strong attack (possibly with slightly increased range as well) and a high charge bonus, which would make them good against other cavalry and great for charge/run/charge circles, while Cavalry Swords could have hack damage, faster attack with better overall dps but a lesser charge, which would make them an alternative to melee infantry with the benefit of speed and the weakness of not being defensively-cost effective compared to melee infantry. So two units with the same main role (anti-ranged/anti-siege/secondary raider) will also be very different in other aspects. On a side note, a few hours ago I played one game on A16 and right after that one on A17 svn. The second one felt much better on general balance and functionality, even though I'm getting slightly bored with the reduced options and variety on it. It needs better defined and more realistic unit roles and civ attributes but I guess that will have to wait.

Hetairoi indeed use swords, but as side-arm, their main weapons were spears, as was the case with most heavy and some light cavalry. The same would be the case with melee "cavalry heroes". Having alternative weapons in the game would be great. Not only for cavalry, several sword and spear units carried javelins as extra weapons, and many units had a sword or knife side-arm. However, as I've already mentioned, the cav sword class can stay, that's just a minor issue, it's not gamebreaking for me and probably not for anybody else. Just a minor historical flavor that could be used to make balance easier. Are people here in love with cavalry swordsmen:p?

I was talking about 0 AD part I era (and included civs), not cavalry in general. It's just a suggestion that probably won't make it in the game anyway and that won't be a big deal. I just thought, since they're semi-unhistorical and balancing is hard enough already, we could reduce melee cavalry to one class.

My point is this: Cavalry Swords are a bit strange conceptually. I've yet to come across an ancient cavalry unit with swords as their main weapon. It would be a side-arm to spears, javelins or bows. I guess the class could be removed overall, making balance easier as well, as we have too many troop types.

I suggested to replace them with cavalry spearmen, not just remove them, just forgot to mention it (again).

True:) (NEW) UNIT CLASS ROLES To better handle differences of ranged and spear weapons if the current combat system is to be maintained, I'd suggest a spear attack type in addition to the existing ones, possibly renaming pierce to missile. Infantry Spearman High defense/Anti-CavalryLow attack speed (big weapons)Higher Attack/Lower Collision for Pikemen (to make them work better in groups until formations are in) but also slightly reduced missile defense (massed sarissas to maked up for smaller shields, but not totally). Maybe reduced speed.Persian, Mauryan, Gaul and Briton Citizen versions get reduced melee defense (only large shield, no armor), essentially meatshields, with the two celtic ones possibly having average attack and the other two reduced. Maybe increased speed.Triarrii bonused or trained at rank 2 as veteransSpartans bonused at dps/defense or having a fear auraMachimoi weaker but cheaper and faster to trainSilver shields bonused at attack/defenseImmortals lower defense but train fasterHoplites slightly higher defenseInfantry Swordsman The average unit with no big weakness or bonus. Relatively high attack and defense.High attack speed. Could be slightly faster moving than spearmenIberian Citizen version could have reduced (missile) armor having smaller shields.Infantry Skirmisher Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.Fast train time.Agrianians,Thracians and Iberians bonus dps or speed.Infantry Archer Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense. Could have low collision for increased effectiveness in numbers.Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Persians, Syrians and Indians longer range.Cretans increased defense.Infantry Slinger Lowest dps and defense, highest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.Reduced stone cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Rhodians longer range.Balearics increased damage.Cavalry Spearman High dps, Low attack speed (big weapons).Good defense and speed.Companions/Thessalians bonused at dps/speed.Bactrians/Cappadocians bonused at defenseCataphracts largely bonused at defense but reduced speed.Cavalry Swordsman Could be removed (replaced with cav spears) as somewhat unhistorical and for easier balance (swords could be implemented as a side arm for all cavalry, like units in AOE 3), else:Better melee defense (melee instead of chargers/lancers)and lower damage compared to Cav Spears, higher attack speed.Cavalry Skirmisher Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged cavalry.Thracians (Odrysians) and Iberians increased dpsNumidians increased speedCavalry Archer Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense.Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Increased range over average archer (all eastern units)Do camel ones still need their stench aura? - perhaps camel-traders could also be deployed as cavalry debuffers.Chariots Will need trample to balance and get a proper role, better left as more expensive cavalry archers/skirmishers for nowWar Elephants Differentiate their stats among civs by armor and elephant species.Fear aura still missing?Seleucid, Indian armored increased dps, hp and defense, reduced speedIndian Archer increased hpPtolemaic, Carthaginian, Possible Extra/Mercenary ones at average

Updated OP with hopefully all info and many extras SOME STRANGE STAT ISSUES: OTHER: A BALANCING TEMPLATE GENERAL SUGGESTIONS AND TECH PROPOSALS: CAMPAIGN: FACTION SPECIFICS Trying to make each faction unique through historical attributes. Note that the unit lists I'm mentioning are chosen mostly from a historical perspective, balance and uniqueness for each faction on that field would need lengthy discussions. ATHENIANS The Athenians should have bonuses on navy, expansion, infantry mobility, economy and research, with an expand and defend playstyle. Faster built or cheaper Civ Centers will allow quick expansion (simulating colonization or vassalization of other's colonies) with mobile infantry forces and navies to protect them or raid enemy holdings. Later on, Philosopher units can help the colonies flurish enhancing construction, economy and research, to make up for a slightly weak late game military. BRITONS The Britons should be an offensive civ with relatively cheap and weak (in defense) early units and weaker, faster built (wooden) structures. This makes them a viable booming faction as well. More research needed. CARTHAGINIANS The Carthaginians should have bonuses on naval trade, navy, exploration, expansion, defenses and mercenaries. Locating (with bonused scouting) and securing (with fast built or tough structures) metal deposits, to help them make the most out of their mercenary armies, as well as maintaining naval and trade superiority could be their core direction. GAULS The Gauls should be an offensive civ with relatively cheap and weak (in defense) early units and weaker, faster built (wooden) structures. This makes them a viable booming faction as well. Later on they get access to tougher units and upgrades. IBERIANS The Iberians are the ultimate turtle civ with several defensive bonuses and also specialize at guerilla warfare. Their units are quite varied but their navy is one of the weakest. MACEDONIANS The Macedonians field powerful cavalry, infantry and siege weapons and reliable missile units. A mostly offensive faction at early-mid game, that gets more staying power later on with reforms increasing the survivability of several units. MAURYANS The Mauryans could be an aggressive (rush) civ with weak, cheap and fast trained units, relatively weak and fast built (wooden) structures. This can also allow them to play with a booming playstyle, since cheap citizen-soldiers should give an early economic advantage. Their armies are rather weak with the exceptions of archery units and war elephants. PERSIANS The Persians excel at massing weak, cheap infantry units supported by equally cheap but formidable archers. But what really stands out is their cavalry arm, one of the strongest among all civs. Their structures are strong as well, although a little slower to build. PTOLEMIES The Ptolemies should have a well balanced military, with most troop types and better than average mercenaries, but that shouldn't be the core of their strength, somewhat lacking in champion units and military techs. Farming, research, naval and defense bonuses should make them a booming-defensive faction with a variety of secondary options. ROMANS The Romans might have somewhat weak cavalry, but make up for it with easy to mass tough infantry, strong siege weapons/structures and increasingly good technology as the game advances. SELEUCIDS The Seleucids probably have access to the largest troop variety of all civs, including several elite units and powerful reforms. Their other aspects could stay at average more or less for balance, even though historically they could have many other bonuses and their weaknesses don't translate well in RTS gameplay. SPARTANS The Spartans can be a very unique faction with early available, very limited, super-elite infantry supported by average to poor other units. Late game reforms can provide a reliable, massable unit in Cleomenian Pikemen and improve other troop classes through newly unlocked mercenaries, so that they can stand against other faction's now powerful armies. Helots can be used as a unique worker unit with the best default farming rate (even if slaves are added in general).