Mythos_Ruler

I'm not sure what kind of bonus a simple box will end up having. Personally I would like Box (we call it Line) and Column to be basic "default" formations that units naturally fall into when tasked in groups. Line when tasked over short distances and column over long distances (with a speed bonus). I really don't want to decompile and chew over each and every formation in this thread though.

I agree with everything here. Formation bonuses should be substantial enough to make them worth using! It would be good to make 100 soldiers in formation as powerful as a simple mob of maybe even 200 enemy soldiers. These bonuses should be realistic, though, and intuitive. Other benefits to using a formation would be the nullification of focus-fire. For instance, it would benefit you greatly to put your hero into a phalanx of hoplites because then the enemy has to target the entire formation and cannot focus-fire just on your hero. So, it's not just bonuses that can make formations worthwhile, but practical gameplay mechanics like that.

We actually have lots of cool ideas floating around like this for Part II. I think the Part II discussion if we manage to get to that point will be very fun indeed! For instance, buildings for the Huns that pack up into carts and unpack elsewhere.

It would be possible, but since we don't have an animator currently it shouldn't be a consideration yet.

I figured it could be like Starcraft, with the green blocks (or something similar). Total War games have a hard core base. Yes, a scout could "get screwed" by a random arrow, but the same could be said about the scout running into a pack of wolves or something unintended like that. And I think the "randomness" of this idea is kind of overplayed; the "randomness" evens out over time as Philip illustrated. The exciting parts to me personally are the stats. Right. Since we want siege units to take down buildings we could just dispense with "armour" for buildings and just give them Siege Points that are ticked off with every strike of a ram or catapult stone.

To address Erik's concerns first, directional considerations are already important to our game, or else why use formations and flanking and all those other things we want? So, yes, I think sometime we need some way of determining the directions of attacks, because we want those flanking bonuses and such. We really haven't talked about things like this for a long time, mostly because it has taken this long for the game to reach such a state to where we can actually talk about these things with consequence. I don't look at it as adding complexity for its own sake. I look at it as 1.) differentiation, 2.) realism, both visual and tactical, 3.) adding that minor bit of randomization and chaos (electrolytes) that plants crave. Personally, I don't like how it's just a matter of draining down Health points. It doesn't feel real to me and I think something like this adds immersion to the battles. Philip's right, in that such a system probably works better with larger battles (as with Total War games), but I also think it works well for smaller battles, skirmishes, and even RPG aspects when you actually have to worry a little bit about your hero being negatively affected by randomness. You have to be more judicial how you use your individual units if there is a possibility of them dying from one arrow or one strike. I think it adds a small element of fear/excitement that a simple subtraction game (the current system) lacks. In the current system your hero in an RPG scenario could hack through one enemy unit after another, while being healed by a priest, which seems weird to me! In my system there's the (very small) possibility, depending upon how the stats shake out, of the Hero getting struck down by a heroic squire fresh out of the fields. I like this. I also like how the stats make a little more real-world sense. A defense.shield stat makes more sense to me than an abstract armor.piece and armor.hack. I like that authenticity. It's cool to say these Spartans have a "Large Metal Shield" which gives them (and all other units with this shield type) X Defense.Shield, than just an abstract "25 Pierce Armour." I know this would be a huge change from the current system, but I think it's worth examining.

Right now the game has a pretty standard combat system. Units have one or more types of attacks (hack, pierce, crush) and one or more types of armour (Hack, Pierce, Crush), and Health (or Hitpoints). Like most RTSs, units simply hack away at each other, with a simple combat formula of Attack Type value vs. Armour type values that slowly drains health. In a way this is very intuitive, but it's also extremely unrealistic. What I propose is a system similar to the Total War games that uses a "dice roll" and a complex formula for each unit attack. First, I will give an example of the types of stats a unit will have. These stats are much different than the current system and function differently, but once you start to understand how it works they will seem very straight forward and intuitive. ATTACK Attack.Skill -- Dictated by Unit Type and Level (Basic, Advanced, Elite). Attack.Melee -- This generally comes from Weapon-type. Attack.Melee.Charge -- This generally comes from Weapon-Type and Unit-Type. Attack.Missile -- This only comes with ranged weapons. Attack.Bonus -- This is an additive bonus to Attack.Melee(.Charge) and Attack.Missile stats against the Unit Types listed. Now, the actual attack of a unit is a combination of the above. Melee Attack = Attack.Skill+Attack.Melee Melee Attack vs. bonused unit = Attack.Skill+Attack.Melee+Attack.Bonus Missile Attack = Attack.Skill+Attack.Missile Missile Attack vs. bonused unit = Attack.Skill+Attack.Missile+Attack.Bonus Charge Attack = Attack.Skill+Attack.Melee.Charge Charge Attack vs. bonused unit = Attack.Skill+Attack.Melee.Charge+Attack.Bonus DEFENSE Life Points -- This is generally a low number, like 1. Most units only get 1 LP, while Super Units may get 2 or 3. Heroes get 5. Defense.Skill -- Dictated by Unit Type and Level (Basic, Advanced, Elite). Defense.Armor -- Denotes body armor and helmets. Defense.Shield -- Denotes size and type of shield device. Now, these Defense values are weighted differently during an attack calculation, based upon different circumstances. Melee attack from the front Defense.Skill -- 100% (The unit receives 100% of the value) Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 100% Melee attack from the flanks Defense.Skill -- 50% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 50% Melee attack from the rear Defense.Skill -- 0% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 0% Missile attack from the front Defense.Skill -- 0% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 100% Missile attack from the left flank Defense.Skill -- 0% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 75% Missile attack from the right flank Defense.Skill -- 0% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 25% Missile attack from the rear Defense.Skill -- 0% Defense.Armor -- 100% Defense.Shield -- 0% All that pretty much makes sense, right? CALCULATIONNow, here comes the complex part: The actual combat formula. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at complex math, so bear with me. What happens is that when two units are attacking each other we add a "dice roll" or number randomization for each strike. Dividing the attack and defense values (the attack of the striking unit and the defense of the defending unit), plus using a function that modulates the number to keep it between the highest and lowest possible dice rolls, gives us a threshold over which this dice roll must come out to in order register a "hit" and take away the enemy unit's Life Point. A defending unit with higher defense values will be less likely to die from a strike and an attacking unit has a higher chance of taking a way the enemy's Life Point if they have higher attack values. I'm not a very good mathematician, so we'd need someone to come up with a good formula for this mysterious "function" that always keeps the defense and attack quotient between the highest and lowest possible dice rolls (let's say between 1 and 10 or 1 and 100). Anyway, so you can see how we can add randomization to the combat, but with Life Points we can keep valuable units from succumbing to just one random hit. With most standard units (Citizen-Soldiers) they will have 1 Life Point, so they will be more subject to the whims of fate. With Super Units and Heroes we add additional Life Points so that a Hit hurts them, but they have a little more staying power.

Of course that would be "possible" and really not that difficult to do, but seeing as how this is our first game we don't want to break too much new ground.

If there would be wooden palisades, they could be cheap (costing only wood, of course), and come with no towers or defenses of any kind, just a simple wooden gate. It is interesting to note that at one point wooden walls, ala AOK, were planned but scrapped for time.

Parthia would get its own faction in Part II. This is almost assured.

What do you think of the possibility of using an online Wiki that is pulled in by the game? That way we can continually update and revise it.

We turned off the skybox because you could see the bottom of the box off the edge of the map.

Played against the AI a little bit. It's great to see what it did. Pretty cool. A few things: - Shift-queue building seems broken. - The AI females were chasing deer all over the map. Should probably focus them on berries instead and cavalry upon the deer. - The AI didn't seem to know what to do with the starting units. - The AI needs to learn where to place dropsites. - When a group of enemy spearmen marched toward my base and were attacked by my soldiers, the AI soldiers didn't seem to know what to do. - My units no longer seem to auto-gather after building a dropsite.

Oh, thanks man! I think I may make another gameplay video today.

main menu launches. Launch a game. The templates don't load at all, giving a blank black map and a defeat dialog.

As a map designer, I'd find it rather interesting to design "preferred paths" for units on a map. For instance, give certain ambuscade areas pathing preference would be interesting, as well as other choke points. Though, I wonder how easily this could get really effed up in the hands of less experienced designer.

Well, plus there will be technologies to make building structures faster.

Right. For instance, the Greeks get the Phalanx and Syntagma.

The bottom wagon would be a good eyecandy object for Farmsteads.

The second way is definitely nicer. It probably wouldn't be too hard to switch back to the old "AOM" way if it turns out to be a problem, would it?

lol, twtter sux 4 u bcuz of the chrcter lmt. srs lulz.

Hey brother. Welcome!

1.) Gates don't work right, yet. 2.) Don't choose an AI yet; just go with the default for now.

Problem with fog at edge--units disappear near edge.

It looks like my Goats and Sheep, when killed and harvested for food, are then tallied under my "units lost" and "units killed" at the end of the game.