LordLee

My question becomes: why should I ever use a formation other than box for my archers? (staggered formation aside due to area of effect) Even if I don't have melee/archer units i would still use the box for the armor bonus. In which case ideally it becomes a mechanical step in the combat process (if you made me build melee units). build order: "build archers"; "group archers"; "set formation" that doesn't really add anything to the 2 formation system except for an extra hotkey. In such a case I would argue to eliminate any other formation because they are just extra. Also I'm not sure why a box should have an extra armor bonus. In an ideal world, if you've really blown it tactically (or your enemy is trying a last ditch flank), a box would be used to split your front if under the threat of being flanked. I.e. so your archers aren't hit.. In this case your archers have to be valuable and vulnerable, and your troops meaty; flanking has to be a really big deal, and the battle has to last long enough to make tactics like this worth it. (i.e. remember that for every second you spend on your battlefield, your economy suffers as well, that is why better players never fight battles they can't use to their advantage). Besides all this. In order to do that, you're archers and catapults have to be in the same formation as your swordsman, which almost no one is willing to do because it makes combat terribly inflexible (i.e. people want special control of catapults). You can see how this problem is becoming increasingly more complex. I would like these things to be the case, but games like AoK, SC, and other RTS's don't incorporate these features on purpose. even formation driven rts games like RaF completely sidestepped multiple formations. Because, it takes time from other aspects. I used to work with Devs on other RTS games, all the pieces have to fit together neatly, and even then gameplay takes time to tune.

I believe that the main resource in RTS is time, and in order to make formations important you have to make it worth the time to use it. I like having a variety of formations, but practically speaking, they get lost in rts games, because the time spent solving problems like this is better spent building an army to replace it that is twice its size. Ideally, everything in RTS can be reduced to a problem in time management. In the best RTS games, if choice exists at all, there are basically 2 formations: Line and staggered. The rest is almost always extraneous. There is a good reason for this. A game like TW focuses all its energy and time on tactics and still has to pause and slow. Besides that, what you have is what you get, whereas in rts reinforcements are very real. In an rts game its much easier to build a new army or approach the problem through an army backed combat structure. A small bonus isn't going to convince me to use a box formation. The bonus has to be really substantial. I have to be able to beat a substantially bigger army before I will consider using it. You open a whole pantry worth of worms in that case. If you have a good solution to that, by all means offer it. But I'm more afraid of combat becoming frustrating. Develop a comprehensive flanking system with useful formations, but make sure they aren't inflexible. Control groups will take over because they make army organization infinitely easier and more organic than rank and file. Fussing with box formations and the like is impractical. Better to use terrain or numbers to cover your flanks. Having a whole set of formations is nice, but really impractical. The mechanics involved with the wedge and shield wall are significant. Something like skiltron is like choosing the persian military position instead of being forced into it by the Greeks (battle of Marathon). The technology of the age doesn't support the position. In ancient times, Cavalry is too valuable face-to-face against a phalanx formation. Formations tend to rely on mechanics that aren't always in a game. Bonuses should be kept to a minimal, they often make the game feel fake. Wherever possible if a bonus is introduced it should be tied to mechanics. i.e. a morale system of routing, surrendering, fighting to the death, heroes, high ground can solve a lot of problems and express a lot of bonuses in what seems to be real. Giving a square formation a fat 30% bonus makes little sense. unless you consider that formations won't work without it. (you lock up lots of attack value) You have to create a game mechanic to suspend disbelief.

Practically, How big can armies get in the game? Can the Engine/people's computers handle a larger scope? That aside: Ancient armies were centered around formation combat. The trouble with creating a game between 500 B.C. and A.D. 0 is that lots of military advancements occurred across cultures. Marius and Philip of Macedon are two notable reformers, but there were a variety of formations available to each nation besides the basic one. Most formations are also equipment specific, and something like sciltron wasn't used until a thousand years later when a tradition of cavalry was more widespread. Terrain/Geography governs the usefulness of Chariots/Horses. Games nearly always go the "unit type" route simply for practicality. Obviously, involving terrain/Geography beyond a superficial level of high/low ground and river/forest becomes horribly impractical. Still it would be nice to see formations play a role on the same superficial level, where units actually held together (and to their standards) during a combat, and stragglers simply were wiped out. TW builds its game around tactics to the point where slowing or stopping the game becomes popular (managing archer ff, individual unit formations, "charge" versus "digging in" bonuses). IMO, 0AD should probably not emphasize these kinds of tactics. It's simply too much with so many unit types and so little time. It would be nice to involve flanking, hitting two sides of a formation. Even something like a wedge formation versus a phalanx is quite complex, and The effectiveness would become limited without a "charge" bonus and against deeper ranks....it depends a lot on momentum and splitting a shield wall formation in half. If it doesn't the wedge is itself flanked. There are lots of other factors too which haven't begun to play a role, but I would encourage a somewhat superficial, yet more realistic formation system. Include formations, incorporate wedges, phalanxes, and testudo formations, but only have 2 or 3 different kinds for ALL the units. Formations and flanking can enrich combat, but also need more units. (Scouts should be a small formation, not a single unit). That is why I asked how big the scope was, because practically formations require LOTS of units, and fundamentally revolutionizes combat. Maybe 0ad wants to do something like that, maybe this draws too much emphasis to combat arena. Its something worth thinking about.

Excellent support. I'm look forward to Alpha IV. Lots more bugs since my initial play, but maybe I'll just wait for alpha IV. Boats: --Graphically: In alpha 3, Trires oars interfere with one another and ships sail flush. Besides being unrealistic (interfering with wind, damage from proximity, and rowing interference) it looks bad graphically (overlapping oars) --Combat: Realistically, ships are so unwieldy, they have always had more to do with posturing than numbers. Broadly, RTS has handled Naval combat in two main ways: simple and complementary to land combat (the AoE & SC series exemplify this well); or a heavy emphasis on a few units (ala R&F). RaF is an extreme - 2 or 3 ships in the hands of a micromanager can easily demolish a fleet of someone just a little less focused... Proposed solutions (are not pathfinding technically, but have to do with boat movement): --Make ships that don't ever "bump" into each other graphically. i.e. their "size" is bigger --Ramming seems to be an issue, I'm not even sure how 0AD will handle this --Pentokrator stutters in its movements if matching the slower speed of a Trireme --Individual ships should be spaced further apart (this goes with the first solution, but they shouldn't sail close) Window snap --surely it isn't necessary. Even if the default is not "snapped in" an option would be nice. ex. when I worked on modifications and other applications I used alt+tab, I never wanted to snap out of it with my mouse. Fortress --The implication had to do with cost effectiveness. If fortifications are relatively inexpensive and you foresee them being a dime a dozen then it doesn't make much of a difference, but if garrisons are expensive and siege is expensive, then building a siege unit in a garrison will double the expense. That is all I'm driving at. It all depends on hinges on the importance of siege within the game.

First off, great game, both conceptually and in praxis. Bravo. Very attractive, gritty and vibrant. Also providing tools to examine what is going on in the game is also a bonus as far as alpha goes. If the team goes all the way this homespun project looks very promising. Obviously games aren't ready to be played, but potentialities are present. All testing done on Apple Mac OS 10.6.6 using terminal and Alpha Build III: Cerebrus 8832 Build Dec 21, 2010. I have been watching this game from a distance once in a while, and its looking good. Bugs [*]Fullscreen mouse issue [snapping onto resource/unit] [*]Lack of sound [*]Windowed mode needs to "trap" the mouse inside. Scrolling becomes impossible. Games often use "alt" to snap in and out of the window. [*]AI seems quite brain dead (However: The animations and unit intra-action and inter-action is quite brilliant) Pathing Villagers do not join nearest resource construction site if full Buildings can be built and float on uneven terrain (i.e. Acropolis map, you can build on sheer part of the cliffs) Boat pathing is not ideal. Non-graphic Boat sizes are obviously still being worked on. GUI Holding "shift" does not provide "pathing queue" No "idle villager" button No villager indicators (idle, ea. resource, construction) Hotkeys (Perhaps this is obvious) UI should be smaller. A good solution is Map on left, Unit info on right with buildables/formations strewn in between. Either use or eliminate excess bar space on top Armors/damages/hp should be expressed Colors are not accentuate enough on the minimap. button arrangement needs a bit of work, obviously the scheme is Economic, militaristic, specialistic at the moment Gameplay [*]Placing fortresses and siege pieces together is a bit concerning, because fortifications should be countered by siege. [*]Terrain is excellent, incredible opportunity for strategy. This can make the game quite good.

John Lee Eighteen Years