Karamel

Considering that the current unit roaster is not reconsidered, what should be the general role of each unit type? There are plenty of things that can be tweaked and differences from the same unit class in different civs but should the same class have the same abilities? So here is an open discussion topic for unit class role, that could be validated (or not) on a design meeting later. From the design documents Infantry: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/List%3A_Entities%3A_Player%3A_Infantry Cavalry: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/List%3A_Entities%3A_Player%3A_Cavalry There are also a lot of details in each civilization description. Generally armies were composed of mostly infantry with more or less cavalry (maybe around 1/10). Unit class role Spearmen Spearmen were the core of most armies. Often found heavily armored, or at least with a large shield. The phalanx was designed for the 2 first row to fight together. General role: basic infantry, medium melee range Strength: good armor, good against cavalry (just need to point the incoming target) Weakness: subject to hit'n run (see Battle of Lechaeum, where Athenians derouted unsupported Spartian hoplites with skirmishers hit'n running them) Pikemen Pikemen are a variation of the Greek hoplites with a longer weapon and ligher armor for more mobility and charging abilities. They compensate their lack of armor with using the pike upward as a deflector for projectiles when in pack. Also in pack the forest of pikes makes a frontal assault almost a suicide, with multiple rows of soldiers protecting the front (see siege of Atray, were the roman infantry couldn't advance and persian chariots hold in the battle of Gaugamela). But if very strong from the front, they were almost not able to fight back from the side or back. Once the ennemy has passed the pike, the weapon was almost useless and with no proper armor the pikemen didn't last long (see battle of Pydna, where the Macedonian phallangites were defeated because disorganised by the rough terrain. The Roman took a great advantage once in close quarter). General role: strong infantry, long melee range Strength: get the best when in good order and in sufficient number, super strong against cavalry Weakness: almost ineffective individually or disorganised Swordmen Swordsmen are stronger melee infantry. A good sword was expensive and more restricted to an elite. The Roman Testudo allowed them to advance under cover. General: strong infantry, short melee range Strength: the best melee fighter one on one Weakness: short range (less shield effect of 3 on 1), less suited against cavalry Javelinists Javelinist are short range support troops. They were usually going before the front infantry line, throw a javelin or two and retreat back to soften the advancing troops. They were also equiped with a secondary melee weapon but not matching their dedicated fellows. General: infantry support troop, skirmishers Strength: strong short-range troop, expert of hit'n run (see Battle of Lechaeum), good mobility Weakness: lightly armored Slingers Slingers were used as skirmishers like javelinists. The finest slingers would use some hi-piercing bullets with great accuracy and long range. A sling shot could be very fast from an experimented slinger. It was said the slingers could outrange even archers by Xenophon, saying the Ten Thousands couldn't approach the Persian with the lack of slingers on cavalry. General: infantry support troop, long range mass killers, skirmishers Strength: longest range troop Weakness: not armored, unprecise (doesn't work well on small targets) Archers Archers are long range troops. Like their javelinist counterparts they usually acted before the melee battle or target fleeing ennemies. They seemed to be historically efficients with quick long range hi-piercing arrows, and archer continued to exist long after the game period (contrary to some other units). To distinguish them from javelinists they would be long range support troop unable to hit'n run and very vulnerable to any attack. Still with a shorter range than slingers but better accuracy. General: long range general purpose unit Strength: long range Weakness: not armored Spear cavalry The spear cavalry is the heavier one. It is well armored and has the best weapon for pinning down ennemies. Even if it is not the most manœuvrable. They are so the most expensive cavalry. I haven't found a clear reference cavalry weapons, but they was very often light and heavy cavalry. The spear cavalry would be the heavy one. Strength: good and reliable cavalry Weakness: expensive, weak against spears and pikes are their nightmare Sword cavalry Sword was not the weapon of choice to fight mounted. Celtic sword cavalry tend even to fight by foot and get back to their horse afterward. For the game, they would be the light cavalry. They are best suited for raiding and targeting strategic points (siege units, support troops). Strength: deal a lot of damage quickly Weakness: not well armored they will not stay long in open fight Javelin cavalry Dedicated mounted javelin throwers weren't mentionned historically. They were mostly bound with spear cavalry, throw some javelin as secondary weapon before joining the battle. For the game, they would be the top hit'n run unit, but more expansive than the infantry javelinists. Strength: strong at hit'n running, more efficient than their infantry counterpart by being faster Weakness: because faster than the infantry, they will be lightly armored to be still counterable by other cheaper skirmishers or archers. Otherwise they wouldn't have significant weakness. Archer cavalry Fast long range unit, but rare at that time. Mounted archers will after be the most effective unit in the battlefield, until heavy armored knight came. Historically truely overpowered, combining the strength of the bow with the speed of a horse, even able to shoot back while running away. Strength: fast and long range, hard to pick Weakness: no armor, to give them a weakness, not so much ability to hit'n run Elephant They were very few elephants in the battles, but they were devastating. Battle tactics often consisted of not fighting the elephants directly. They were frightened during the battle of Zarma and some of them turned back against the Carthaginian army. The charge was driven past the ranks to be dealt in the back by skirmishers. Strenght: very durable and powerfull Weakness: very expansive, can lose control

Hello and thanks for the feedback. For a short answer it's mostly as niektb said, the lack of tutorial or things to explain the everchanging features of 0 A.D. 1. Reduce pop cap For performance issue there were already some commentaries made above about significant improvements for alpha 19. I will just say we are working on making the game start earlyer, so if you reach 300 pop you're kind of turtling. 2. Reduce max camera distance Why not. In fact I've never read anything about the camera, thanks for pointing it. In the current state (alpha 18) units are rather fast and have long range. This means that one screen doesn't cover much time. Say if a unit can cross the screen at default camera distance, you only see 1 second ahead. If it requires 3 or 4 seconds, the default distance become more comfortable. There are some works for further alphas to reduce the game pace. In fact I'm even zomming in to handle battles on some of my personal works 3. Camera angle. Could be. I use ctrl + arrows to control the camera, some more obvious way to control it may be good. 4. Player colors Well, battles are a real mess I agree with that. Maybe an option to show the colored silhouettes even when not masked can improve the situation perception at a glance. One other way is making battles clearer, that can be done mostly with formations, with a battle run more left vs right than a pack of units running everywhere. 5. Player zone (territory) Territory management was a bit different at start, there are some issues to be adressed on it, mostly for early game in my opinion. The general idea is I think that when you cross your borderline is kind of "I'm not at home anymore, should take care", and on the ennemy one is "well, now I'm not welcomed here". 6. Counter scheme The old and complex (but clear) counterscheme was dropped in alpha 17. Even with the soft counter scheme, it lacks for now some indications in a tutorial or things like that. 7. Citizen soldiers This one is the core of 0 A.D., your "army" is never idle, and even your cavalry as hunters. I know it's kind of disturbing in the first games but it provides an original gameplay (and interesting if you ask me). I truely appreciated 0 A.D. after watching a video of two advanced players to see how to handle this particular game feature. Again, it's a matter of tutorial lack 8. Military builders Having female citizen not be able to order the build of a military building but still build it anyway after was already pointed out, but it was said it's kind of normal... Don't know. This point is still deeply bound to changing point 7, and it won't So as niektb said just before, there are almost nothing to welcome new players and show them a few tricks to enjoy the original gameplay. The problem is that it takes a lot of time to do it and changes between an alpha and an other can require to rewrite most of it. I try to play some games the players I introduce 0 A.D. to, but I can't do it for all random Internet players Anyway, the point of view of a new player is interesting to have, even if I may have answered things like "it's not how 0 A.D. works", there will be things to do to explain in a way or an other how to enjoy 0 A.D. quickly, with a tutorial, short campaign or anything offline game.

New version with more battle review. This version is mostly a balance one from the previous version with some soft-counter. Tested on a forest map against 2 normal AI I found the battles good even if their duration could be a little bit longer. Because there wasn't much clear terrain the movement of formations were painfull (from 20 to 50 men) but once on somewhat clear ground it went well. But because of that it was hard to put some cavalry to break the back archer line or pin reinforcements. The "counter scheme" is near to the old one but less obvious (maybe around 20% bonus instead of 50% or 100%). Below is the mod unit design even if everything is not implemented and some things are subject to changes.I also have a few more historic references but I'll put them all elsewhere. sibyllae vox 20151007.zip Sibyllae Vox patches 20151007.zip

Hello, we had the third design meeting yesterday evening. There was DarcReaver, Tango_ who joined recently and myself, niektb was absent and excused later . Stan and scynthetwhirler as spectator. We just continued the meeting from the previous week which couldn't have been finished on time. Evolution of a game through time With the around 3 minutes being a rush of course (on #1 we said a game would be around 20 to 45 minutes), it may be longer. We also talked about training time, splitting or massing units, teching up, using multiple barracks, battalions and micro, too weak units for retreat. So we have now the 4 sections of the game a bit described (which were historical accuracy, planning and winning battles, building a city, and evolution of the game) Next meeting The next meeting will happen this Sunday at 20:00 (Paris/Berlin) unless someone is unavailable like for meeting #2. The suggested topic for this week is about general battle management (duration, speed, forming and so). From the meetings #2 and #3, one topic is more than enough for a 1h meeting.

So, we had our meeting yesterday evening. There were niektb, DarcReaver and myself, and Stan and Scynthetwhirler (I would never write his name twice identically) as spectators. The general vision was split on four topics during the week and we got more details about each one. The limit of historical accuracy in 0 A.D. We told about civilisations, unit roles, learning historical things and complex things that cannot be implemented or would be not enjoyable in an RTS game. Winning a battle and planning them There were much things said upon this topic, about forming an army, deploying it, massing, use of terrain, scouting, micro and macro, techs, orders, formations, battalions, train time... But to get the general principle somewhat in a hurry. Building Cities This point revolved arount building smartly, holding resources, defending and weaknesses, offense/defense/eco civs... Again to get the general principle behind that. Next meeting Next meeting is scheduled on sunday 21:00. The last point about evolution of a game through time was postponed to this next meeting.

Yes, we have an MP list in which we share our points of view. The meeting shouldn't length more than one hour, it's not where topics will be debated much. There was only one meeting previously which served as establishing the root, so I can't tell exactly how it will work, but I think it will be the place were our week discussions are summed up and things are officially acted (otherwise there isn't any clear point when we can go further relying upon what was decided). From a meeting to another, we set on what we should work for the next one. Once the general concepts are clear (how the game should be), I'd like to put implementation (how things are done) on more opened discussions. Even if I'm lurking on the forums these days. The design team members would be there to check wether suggestions would fit to the concepts. But like mentioned above, this is just how I feel it, not how it will be (this is up to the team).

No design meeting yesterday, it would happen soon. We are currently splitting the main description we set from the design documents into general aspects of the game to detail them further. More to come...

I've noted this 2 points on things to track: using battalions (which in my opinion will join the formation review) and the arcade mode. It would be good to develop your ideas in dedicated threads at least for me to keep track of what is said.

Do you mean in alpha 18 and/or svn or in Delenda Est? (this is a request for you to explain a bit more why you feel it too hard )

Aaand that's it. I have reviewed ships (spend some time today to document myself about bi/tri/quinquiremes), even if I think in current state they are a bit broken the with missing features for naval warfare. Some few changes in infantry line of sight and buildings durability. Now I can spend more time playing around to see if it's mostly enjoyable. Sibylla Vox patches 20150923.zip sibylla vox 20150923.zip

New day, new version. That one is focused on siege and building, but I just have finished it right now, I haven't tested it (more over because the AI never builds walls and other building are mostly captured). It compiles! Ship it! It was also rebased upon the latest git commits, so it bundles the latest changes in vanilla 0 A.D. The last thing I want to change before a "feature freeze" and going balancing is ships. - Heroes and champions are fixed - Siege damage and armors are slightly changed - Single armor for every building, but various HP Known issues: - Naval units are not designed. - The overpowered skirmisher cavalery rush may be back, but seems easier to counter - Vision and range may be a little to short, maybe more for archers, archery tradition goes outside vision and is somewhat broken - Need multiplayer testing I don't really know what to do about slingers, they are a very atypic unit. Archers may also be a bit underpowered. There is not really a long range unit, unless catapults or maybe with archery tradition. As for friendly fire I have seen it in the templates. I won't change it at least in short term, it may be really interesting but also complexifing a lot battle management. The formations should allow skirmishers to go to the front, shot and get back easily, archer should stop firing when melee is engaged... It would dramaticaly change how battles are handled. If anyone is interested in testing the mod, check for the IRC channels if I'm around sibylla vox 20150922.zip Sibylla Vox patches 20150922.zip

No feature changes for now, as alpha 19 is knocking on the door and it would be too much changes at once on a very short delay. I have a local repository but I'm rebasing and editing my few commits, because I log my changerules and want to have only a few neat commits to send. Still I can join the diffs along the mod (oops, I already fixed things) Sibylla Vox patches 20150921plus.zip

[edit]Sibyllae Vox website: http://creativekara.fr/doku.php?id=0adsv:start for the latest version and instructions[/edit] Hello Probably from alpha 18 pre-release I studied the design documents and made a few suggestions. With this mod I try to get things to what I understood. It will I think feel a bit like alpha 17 with new features and some implementation changes (like disapearance of most hard-counters). For the first versions, I'd like to only redesign units to enhance the battle gameplay with a slower and strategic pace with hope it could be included in alpha 19. Later on there should be larger changes about territories, resource costs or other things, with more time to plan everything according to what the design comittee would build. Even if I'm part of this committee, this is only my personal work and wasn't agreed by anyone for now. To play with this mod download the archive and unzip it in the "mod" directory of 0 A.D. Then in tools and options choose select and activate mods and activate Sibylla Vox. First version changes: Unit speed and vision Health values Armor, damage and ranges Defensive structure damages and range Known issues: - Naval units are not designed. - The overpowered skirmisher cavalery rush may be back - Vision and range may be a little to short, maybe more for archers - Need multiplayer testing - Heroes are not reviewed A Sibylla is and independant and nomadic oracle which would tell prophecies in a mysterious and ambiguous way. The Voice of Sibylla tell you something that you must interpret well and can lead to doubts. sibylla vox 20150921.zip

Yesterday we met to talk about the general gameplay design of 0 A.D. We, that is scythewhirler, DarcReaver, niektb and myself, an autoproclammed design comitee (thus most of the team is aware of it) that I invited after this thread http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20038. We are not dictatoring how things should be, but try to stick to what 0 A.D. is, refering to the design documents and looking at what is said on the forum (and IRC). So we first met to agree of what describes 0 A.D. for further common works. Relying upon this http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision, we diverged about a lot of points from the current state, about capturing, micro and macro, formations.... Then we agreed this: This surely doesn't say all and may seems just a rephrasing of the design document. It is our starting point for further discussions and decisions. The next meeting will happen on next Sunday. We will discuss each point of the desciptions and act more details for each then and see if the game fits it or what should be modified to get it.

Starting from this I have invited some of you to be part of a design meeting. I've selected participants from their contributions and suggestions on the forum, sens of constructive criticism and developped ideas. If you want to participate please send me a private message, I'll speak a bit with the other and invite you (or not). There shouldn't be a dozen of members to avoid a big mess and interminable meeting. Thus it should be the most objective (as it can be for design things) and opened to the forum. The first one will happen this sunday and will be about how we feel it with the lights of the design documents to define a few tasks and subjects of priority. The report will be posted on the forum. The aim of this meeting is to try to keep a cohesive design through the alphas and know where we are going, thus preventing moving back and forth (and try to make it clear so than everyone can work in the same general direction). And at least to evaluate suggestions and say if it would be interesting to include (with giving the time for it), if it won't break other things or if it should go as a mod for examples. I'm also working on the templates for alpha 19, I'll post more details on a dedicated post after the first meeting if it can validate I'm going in a sensible way.

When I first "studied" 0 A.D., something really chocked me: some contribution were rejected because the core team didn't want it. This was completely new for me. But time passed, games were played, the design document read, reread, rerereread and once more and I understood this (I haven't read all the design document though). The core team knew where they were going (or at least willing to go). It didn't said "implement hard counter" but said "this kind of unit was used this way historically and was defeated this way" (just for that point). Since alpha 17 it seems that there are a lot of changes and new things but no clear way about how it should be (or be like) Someone need to say if http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision is still 0 A.D. what have changed and which other documents are still usable as a reference (in fact someone did something on his own that seems to go close to that as a mod...). Maybe get the dedious task of making it clear for every suggestions that were done here (I would really like to add my view but I fear to fall in "this is how it was thought at first", without being there at first...)

This could be cool In that way (I know, when someone brings up an idea, I get a few more easy ones), why not playing civilization music when in territory (or mostly around buildings)? So when managing your town, you get that really nice peacefull music and when going out scouting or anything, you only get the ambiant noises like the wind, birds, water shore or other. And we need footsteps

I tried some games lately just to see. My mood was "hey, how is alpha 19 going if I want to put some LAN with it?". It is about 3 things: capturing, general balance (in fact unit design) and pathfinding I never finished a game either. I stopped at phase 2 with a few rush against a poor AI (even in very hard) and being stuck around an empty civic center. Capturing is making raiding more tedious. Capture, select, destroy, repeat. It is still very fun to capture a defense tower and use it to protect your raiding party but raiding a 5 pack houses and depots is boring. In enemy territory, you can't keep them anyway.Village phase is anemic. Even if I think units are superfast I don't really get the point of rushing. Much much much micro to do with broken skirmishers (with the fake throw prepare time) and unkillable melee units. I reanabled auto-micro with minimum range for some tests and I was more pleased with the result (less dumb-heroic thing of a skirmisher trying to fight an armored swordman in front of him)No formation, fast units. It's an arcade game for designing targets and managing your troops with a very high action per minute. I even get troubles clicking on moving units . And as I don't really get the counter scheme well for now I just get melee = shield, skirmishers = damage. I use cavalery skirmishers a bit before raiding for scouting and luring some troops away.Just for comparison, I tried Delenda Est a few weeks (month?) ago, here are what I preffer: Outposts: as you can build your depots outside your territory and are encouraged to do so, village phase is more dynamic with early encounters around outposts. Even if the civic center is untouchable. Still early game battles can give an advantage on long term.Capturing becomes then more interesting, by capturing outposts (thus line of sight and territory) instead of buildings around the civic center that couldn't be kept anyway unless the player is anihilated.Game pace is slower. Both with unit movement and training time (and cost). Your choices are more visibles, line of sight get very valuable. Along with formations, the overall game is much clearer (and more eye candy)Obvious counter scheme: even if I'm more for a soft counter scheme, the hard counter scheme make it clear how you can defeat some troops and give roles to your unit types instead of rushing them all and see what's happening.I made some suggestions in balancing to stick more to the design document if you want some concrete things. It goes toward something more like Delenda Est though. Regarding capturing, I don't really know. It works well with a few cases like defense towers and maybe civic center. I must check but I think women reduce capture, which makes it very hard even if there are no military unit around. Maybe it should be a spartan bonus only. About the pathfinding I don't really know. There are a lot of bugs in the current state like units being stuck or abording their job but it's not suprising with a rewriten from scratch thing. If the performance is much better, it must not be thrown away. Maybe alpha 19 is technicaly ready in some way (capturing enabled, improved performance, new UI stuff) but not mature enough? Or maybe I'm an old frustrated player that don't want an antic Starcraft

Just my few cents. I don't have the mind to dig into the math right now (it's late by there). I use the score to see where I did wrong. Trying to understand a bit what made me win (or more often lose). I don't really use the global score, but more the details. If a resource is far below (harvested or spent), I must focus more on building and less on fighting/raiding (or more efficiently). If I had half the number of military units, I should build a stronger army and less females. If trading is far better I know I have underlooked it etc. If I had more military and lost, I should ask how to play I don't really care about how much, but it's just a tool for me to try to understand what append. Effeciency could be fun to subcompare at a glance, but I don't think I would rely upon it (overwhelming with stronger eco even if not optimised is still perfectly viable).

I think we have enough information to open a ticket and work on a patch. Have you ever opened a ticket? I searched quickly but haven't found one relating stance change. If it is as you said changing stance doesn't check if the current order was forced (i.e. ordered by the player) or not (automatic order like stance reaction). When ordering stance change the current order should be checked to see if it is still appropriate for the new stance.

Units not attacking in stand ground may be related to this http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3284 Somehow it looks like picking other targets when the first one is killed. I may be able to check some things in a few days. Thus do you have the same behaviour in passive and stand ground? Or only stand ground?

If you want to disable formations by default check in binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/helpers/Commands.js. Line 1398 choose the formation to use when none is selected when ordering multiple units (formation/null for none). BUT this is not the issue. The problem is about when units should form or not and where. I'm currently trying to make units ignore their formation for civil tasks (gathering, building, repairing) but still have some problems with the column for long range walks (i.e when asking to build something all accross the map, they should go near in column then disband, same for gathering, considering once they are there, there will be local stuff to stay there). After that I can check battle dynamics. The first thing to do is preventing units at range to stop fighting to gather somewhere under fire then return to the battle. Since most formations are disbanded in actual fighting it seems logic not to build and disband for the fun. Note: I'm using Delenda Est for testing and implementing, since the gameplay is more suitable for formations.

For point 1. I have to check but it may be related to attacking units seeking for an other target when the given one is killed. Thus I didn't checked it precisely and it was days ago. For point 2. I couldn't reproduce. I made a tower in Atlas, moved some spearmen in passive stance nearby and they flee away when they are hit. Do you have a procedure to make it happen most of the time?

Alekusu, try Delenda Est if you want to test buildings outside your own territory. You can build storehouses and farmsteds and (maybe it's the same in the original) put one guy in an outpost for small defense even if it may be actually worse than the garrisoned unit. Instead of walls, you need scouting and large vision because units move much slower. With significant counters it makes it very important to be able to check what's coming and be prepared. I've played only against AI but always started fighting very early, on normal sized maps.

The following is more about the general direction rather than a simple balance. To keep it short I'll just point the main things. Reduce general movement speed: sometime with fastest units I get trouble clicking on them (even mine). Reducing the movement speed will contribute to get longer battle and have more time to react, which was one of the key point of alpha 18 rebalancing. Review pikemen: add speed, damage and reduce armor to be more threatening (and useable). The long range differenciate them from spearmen when they fight in pack with a lot of them on the same target (plus initiative), but they should still be weaker individually. I already suggested from pre alpha 18 to try to mostly stick to the counterscheme from the design documents (with softcounters) but it must be clear that it is still relevant before spending more time adjusting stats in that way (otherwise play Delenda Est). I made some changes in that direction if it interests someone.