ChronA

I agree with @LetswaveaBook. I think giving units a battle sprint behavior would be a great way to buff up melee units to a more historically authentic effectiveness against ranged opponents, while also making the game more visually and mechanically distinctive from other offerings in its genre niche. However I do think there is value in simplicity. I don't think it's necessary (or good game design in context of 0 AD's other systems) to make it player controlled. Combat in 0 AD (for better or worse) uses very large unit counts packed together very densely. That makes tracking the resource levels of individual units very difficult and removes a lot of the nuance from micromanagement. Given these conditions, in high level play I don't think there are many situations where you would not want a unit to use its sprint if the ability is available and an enemy target is in relatively close range. So why waste player micro on it? Likewise I don't think it's necessary or desirable to introduce a visible stamina bar, for the same reasons. Most of the time it won't be possible to even read a stamina bar for individual units. But so long as the recharge time on the ability is relatively quick, players can safely assume the ability will always be available for at least a goodly portion of their force.

Since this bug fix could have significant balance implications that should be compensated for by (possibly quite pervasive) stat adjustments, it would be better to sit on it until after A25 drops. However it should absolutely be fixed in A26. That sound & animation bug makes the game looks really unpolished.

I know what you mean. The problem (IMO) is spearmen are too efficient at their job of killing melee cavalry (before they can get in contact with the squishy ranged support units). Maybe spearmen should have bonus resistance to melee cavalry attack, instead of doing bonus damage to horses? That would allow cav to be a better counter to ranged units even with spearmen in the area. Ranged units need more counter-play. And it would probably be more accurate too. The whole point of spears against cavalry is that they make infantry masses as intimidating to the horses as the horsemen are to infantry, so they all instinctively avoided each other. The spears didn't magically make the horses die or desert the field of battle, just made them tactically ineffective.

I'd also like some elaboration. (Thanks for clarifying.) AOE3's gameplay was just generally a lesser son of greater sires on every level, so I'm not sure how much stock I put in its specific features as examples of what to avoid. If felt to me more like a game with interesting ideas but a very rushed development, resulting in a haphazard implementation; and no one had the courage (or pull with management) to say that the project either needed more playtesting time to polish the rough edges, or to retreat back to proven design principles from previous games. As you said, the problem with the musketeer is the lack of counter-play. They could have fixed it by leaning into the historical reality that musketeers were like Roman legionaries - heavy melee infantry with a bit of bonus (short) ranged-skirmish ability. So cut their effective ranged attack distance and DPS (or maybe sustain via some ammo or stamina system) so that they are better used as straight melee, and truly countered by dedicated ranged units. Or if they wanted to be ahistorical but perhaps more fun, they could have made ranged their primary damage dealing mode the ranged attack and made their melee mode a trap state, allowing melee cav and infantry to "tie them up." (Dawn of War 2 does a lot with that concept.)

Not necessarily a bad idea to support parallel progressive and conservative development paths. I've seen seen that approach helps keep the peace on other projects. But my concerns would be how far "Empires Extended" could really push things while still being tethered to Empires Ascendant by a shared code base, engine, & art assets; and would the conservatives really be open to integrating substantive developments from Empires Extended into their private sandbox? I'm guessing you would eventually still end up in a situation where the two sides want to fork. The progressive will be tired of having to worry about breaking assets that EA depends on, the conservatives of defending their assets from being broken. When that happens, it will end in each party making a power play for design control over the shared engine and art (which would not be good). This might be a case where Wildfire Games could benefit from the example of the Spring Engine and Zero-K. Zero-K is by far the most popular Spring game (AFAIK) and probably drives a lot of its development. However Spring Engine exists for more than just Zero-K and the two are quite clearly separate entities, with Spring supporting several competing TA clones and other games besides Zero-K. The same does not seem to be true of 0AD/EA/Pyrogenesis, which appear to be functionally all one thing. I think Zero-K could survive a fork over design ideology because everyone would have confidence that Spring would not pick sides. Formalizing the progressive/conservative divide in 0AD's dev scene would be a lot safer if Pyrogenesis (the engine) and 0 AD (the art and code libraries) had similar levels of conceptual independence from the game called Empires Ascendant. (Note: I've deliberately avoided looking too much in on Spring/Zero-K development, because I'm occasionally friendly with some of those guys, and avoiding their drama is one way that I stay friendly with them. So if I am off base in my characterization of the Spring dev ecosystem, please pipe up.)

Sorry but you are objectively wrong about that. There are some extremely simple algorithms that would do the job (see my edit). But I think what you are trying to say is that it would be non trivial to design an algorithm that will switch between weapons competently in every tactical situation. (Which is true.) However you are approaching the problem wrong. It is not the system designer's job to produce a ideal algorithm that will work perfectly in every situation the players and modders can put it in. It is the job of the gameplay designers to design units that play well within the capabilities of the UnitAI, and it is the players job to adapt their micromanagement decisions to the programmed behaviors of their units! And this is not a new philosophy for 0AD, even in the existing design of the UnitAI itself. Units don't optimize their attack targeting to focus down glass cannons, or to avoid overkill. They generally don't even prioritize closer enemies over more distant ones, or units that are actively attacking them over those that are not. They just single mindedly pursue the first enemy that enters their field of vision. No one complains about it because 1) they are used to it and anyone who couldn't deal has left 2) the unit design has adapted so these sub-optimal decision processes don't affect the game much.

I think you are going to make life much more difficult for yourself if you insist on making this feature player controlled. You will have to have a whole discussion about key-binding conflicts, and some people are going to complain about having to do extra micro to optimize their units' combat performance. (These are irrational objections, but they will likely carry the day regardless.) However the mechanic can be supported with minimal new coding and discussion, provided the unit ai is the one deciding which weapon to use. In fact, it is actually possible for a unit to have and use multiple attacks in unmodded 0AD right now, but only in a very specific circumstance. Currently units with both melee and ranged weapons defined in their template will always use the ranged attack, unless the ranged attack is restricted against their current target's class (or apparently if the target's class is a more preferred class for melee than for ranged). In that case they will switch to their melee (provided it is not also restricted). So the mechanism for a unit to use different attacks in different circumstances is already there, we just need to add additional logic for establishing attack preferences in different situations. (And add animation variants for the melee/ranged attacks to the actor files.) Edit: and the additional logic I propose is as follows... Prefer to use weapons that are within range of the target, over those that would require moving to use. If no weapon is within range of the target, switch to the weapon that is closest to being within operational range.

Updated ground combat simulation for alpha 26 please. It doesn't even have to be used in EA; just make some new systems available for modders to experiment with: Directional armor system Infantry and cavalry charging in to attack Basic multi-weapon support Cavalry acceleration and momentum Expanded projectile simulation options - accuracy override, damage falloff, and ballistic occlusion like BreakfastBurrito_007 suggested (if that is technically feasible) For alpha 27-29, take the best new mechanics that come out of alpha 26's experiments and incorporate them into EA. Naturally, this will require an extensive balance readjustment to compensate for new unit capabilities and emergent interactions that were not accounted for previously. The balance team should take that opportunity to introduce stat adjustments based on historical authenticity and polish considerations at the same time. (You are going to get criticized for balance changes no matter what, you might as well get it over with all at once.) In order to be authentic to the period represented, combat should be should be rebalanced more strongly in favor of melee heavy infantry. Ranged infantry and cavalry should still have their roles, but they were there for give support in specific situations (scouting, economic harassment, Fabien tactics, murdering high value targets & elephants etc), not to be the main damage dealers or soakers. Unarmored units (animals, women, and basic ranged infantry) should have their all resistance levels reset to a baseline 0, not 1. Adjust attack damage values as necessary to compensate for any game breaking changes in effective health. Balance advisors should decide what each damage type intuitively represents and apply them consistently, introducing damage multiplier to resolve any unsatisfied balance objectives. Some attack speed values should probably be adjusted for the sake of visual and audio clarity.

If I'm interpreting parameters in simulation\data\pathfinder.xml correctly, the maximum passable incline for both units and buildings is 45 degrees. Personally I think a good practice for any map maker is to mark any impassable inclines with a unique terrain texture. That way there is no ambiguity about where units and buildings can go.

@wraithii I appreciate your dedication, and based on their description the new parameters seem like great additions to the tool kit. I must tell you though that, in my testing, the new dials aren't producing much of a noticeable effect for me. I've even tired turning everything up to double digits, and while a few units on the edge of my groups have begun wandering around where otherwise they would remain stationary, as a group they are pretty much behaving just as before. The only parameter with a clear effect is Clearance. Forgive me for asking, but in your own testing are you sure the pushing feature is working as you intended? I think by far the most likely explanation for these discrepancies is that I managed to corrupt my test installation somehow; but there's an the off chance I might be helping you find a bug... So I thought I'd better speak up Edit: Actually looking at your screen shots on the diff, there is very clearly something not working right with my installation. I'm having teething problems with using SVN it seems. Pay me no mind.

I would absolutely appreciate more parameters to customize pathing behavior. Pathing is one off the most powerful factors in establishing the unique feeling of an RTS. It is the most basic way you interact with the game world. So even relatively small changes in behavior can have a huge impact on the flavor of a product (for good or ill). Given that the 0 AD project aspires to be not just a single game, but a platform for making ancient warfare games, I think embracing gameplay-differentiability is desirable. I would be much more interested in Delenda Est and Hyrule Conquest as stand-alone experiences if they didn't appear to play so much like straight reskins/expansions of EA. Tweaked pathfinding settings would help them to distinguish themselves as their own things. Well I can't hold habituation against you. But ultra dense unit packing does cause problems for gameplay and balance: Choke points have less gameplay impact. This limits the ability of map designers to finesse away certain balance issues, and reduces gameplay diversity. (See this situation for an example of choke points not working: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPuNEQEomGQ&t=2229s). Same story with attack surface-area and concavity. It also reduces combat readability and control, which makes it harder to used mixed unit compositions effectively and reduces opportunities for players to distinguish themselves with individual unit micro.

To clarify, I do not disagree with the feature itself. The much smoother pathing it enables is VERY nice, but obviously I have concerns about the gameplay implications. Admittedly it doesn't seem that much worse when compared to the deathball situation in a24 and a23... except, like I say the situation was already extremely bad IMO. I will definitely play around with the pathfinding parameters a bit, and try to get a feel for what's possible.

I haven't been able to try out this feature until now... but DEAR GOD!!! Did no one test this thing?! Units have effectively no collision now, and that's saying something because they never had very much to begin with. This is what 200 units looks like. And they can even move like this. I assume you are familiar with the term death ball, well this is practically a death black hole.

I do believe a quiver might be somewhat encumbering when running at a full sprint, but that would depend on the precise gear arrangement. If the quiver is open the arrows might bounce out. Likewise, if the quiver were loosely strapped to the wearer, it might flap around and disrupt their gait. However a closed or snuggly fitted quiver, which was well secured to the wearer or supported with the dominant hand while running, would sure be no more encumbering than a skirmisher's small shield and javelins. So, yeah, there might be an argument for a very small speed disadvantage for archers vs slingers and skirmishers, but overall I think giving everyone the same speed is probably the more authentic choice. Yes, I think discipline and training is the key consideration. Putting myself in the sandals of an ancient infantry man, I think I could easily buy the idea of "point this long stick at the charging horsey and he won't run over you because he doesn't want to die." I would be much more skeptical of the instruction "don't worry, the horsey won't run over you because if he does run over you then your friends will maybe try to chop him up with their big knives while he is tanged in your corpse (and he doesn't want to die)." The former promises me that if the horseman decides to test the theory then he will definitely die, but I might live. The latter tells me I will definitely die if the horse decides to test it, but he will only possibly die. Both actually work equally well provided your mounted opponent is not a suicidal idiot, but the spear works out much better for the front row infantry man on those occasions when the enemy does field suicidal idiots. The problem is that in 0 AD every unit is a suicidal idiot. That kind of ruins the whole historical concept of the cavalry charge, which was always just a weaponized game of chicken. I'm not sure there is a clean way to fudge the dynamic in the simulation without resorting to a whole aura-based morale system.

I never said that ranged infantry would be able to beat cavalry. Neither did I. However, I see I was in error because you specified that foot javelinists should be "situationally useful against melee infantry"... meaning that civs with javelin skirmishers could build them to counter foot swordsmen, spearmen, & pikemen (& elephants). Then in turn cavalry could be produced to counter them. That still leaves no clear reason to produce foot archers or slinger, but it is better than I thought. Yes, I've looked at them. Those shields cover about 60% of the rider and 10% of the horse... which leaves the horse looking mighty squishy. Agreed. And yet: the Athenian Hippeus b...

I broadly agree with Thorfinn's preferences. I have a few comments though. 1. If melee infantry categorically beat both ranged infantry and cavalry, there really is no gameplay reason to ever build anything except melee infantry. For the sake of gameplay diversity, ranged infantry and cavalry really need to provide some sort of value-added beyond the capabilities of the standard swordsmen, spearmen, & pikemen. In this writeup I don't see that they do, except possibly acting as a superior raiding force (which is easily countered by static defense, and so will only see a little bit of early-game play). 2. Giving cav and foot archers minimum range could be a double edged sword. It can make them automatically kite any unit substantially slower than them, which is a pretty huge advantage. My experience playing around with unit modding is that a unit with a minimum range does not always perform worse than the same unit without minimum range. Often it actually becomes MUCH better, sometimes even reversing an intended counter. (But on the other hand, I was just complaining that ranged infantry don't add any value in this schema. Maybe they could all be configured to auto-kite the melee infantry, which would in turn give the cavalry a unique role to play by chasing the pests down.) 3. While I do have any principled objection to providing units intended to counter ranged attack with high pierce resistances, that decision really ought to be reflected in their artwork. An unarmored, tunic-wearing farmer on a horse should not be made an arrow-sponge just because a balance plan dictates that sword cavalry counter ranged.

I second this.

I would not consider the problem of the missing rush solved until rushing is viable for almost all civs, and not just those few with access to mercs. Unless the plan is to give every civ P1 access to mercs or champions as a tool to enable rushing, any effort you put in now to balance this will only be a stop-gap. It will all have to be redone from scratch eventually, as part of the general overhaul of unit roles and relationships that it will take to bring this game into a semblance of polish. That's not to say the effort would be wasted, but this is a bandage on a cut that needs stiches.

We are getting close to the alpha 25 freeze date now. Much ink has been spilled on a variety of worthy topics, hopefully not too much of it in vain. Happily, I've got the privilege of an unusually light work week on my plate starting tomorrow. If there are any last minute tasks that need doing, I can help out. I'm guessing I should join onto the designated IRC to coordinate efforts and get help with using the version control system. Or is there a better way that you would prefer?

Sounds like a good outcome. I shall watch your replay with interest.

Really? The whole reason I made this post was that I was getting tired of always changing units' armor values from 1 to 0 in my personal balance experiment mod, and I have never had a template return invalid as a result. Maybe you made a mistake in the syntax? Admittedly this is a question of balance philosophy, but I think if an 11% change in damage received or dealt substantively alters the balance of the game it is a sign of a design problem. If your balance needs to be that finely tuned to work correctly, then almost every change in unit stats or meta will necessitate massive balance revisions to maintain a playable experience. In contrast, a balance painted in bolder strokes will maintain its general shape even as the relative popularity of certain tactics rises and falls in proportion to their current strength (a la game theory).** When I'm doing my experiments, I actually try to start by working only in powers of 2: doubling or halving damage, attack multipliers, and HP until the units have the qualitative relationships I want. Then I try to make minimal fine adjustments necessary to restore game feel. I'll grant that this technique can make for some very hard counters, but it makes maintaining balance easier, and every unit gets a very distinctive role and identity. ** P.S. This approach can definitely cause problem with civ balance when factions are differentiated primarily through their preferred playstyles within a common pool of archetypical strategies. If a certain tactic becomes too niche, civs that specialize in it will get much less play. I would argue that this just means each civ needs to have a couple of viable playstyles in its pocket, but reasonable minds may differ.

Ah! Now that's a good theory! Maybe there was thought of having a hero with an armor-debuffing aura. If every unit has at least 1 armor they could have it reduced by 1 and not fall into negative resistances. (I don't think negative resistance would intrinsically cause any issues, math-wise, but I can see how someone would worry about it.) Likewise maybe someone was worried about divide-by-zero problems if there was an armor multiplying/dividing aura. These are plausible explanations. Unless such auras are already in the game and are see a lot of play, I'm not sure I buy that they are worth forgoing the benefits I listed... but it would at least explain things. Also, thanks for your encouraging words, @hyperion. When messing with gameplay and balance I definitely do believe in a conservative approach. I think there was an XKCD to the effect that any time you find some human made thing that looks weird and stupid, it's a sign that a brilliant engineer spent days trying to optimize an impossible set of demands, before throwing up their hands in frustration. It's a bit hubristic to suppose one can simply do better without large portions of effort and luck.

I am a subscriber to the logic of Chesterton's fence. As much as I don't like this design choice, I must assume it served some purpose at some point in time. Thus it is imprudent for me to invest resources into developing a new solution until I can account for that original purpose. Possibly. However there are some concrete reasons to make a change. It would make it easier to understand the number of hits it takes to kill a unit, which is arguably the most important statistic for understanding unit balance. It would make the GUI slightly simpler and more informative for new players. It would make it easier to test and observe observe in-game how modification that affect damage are working. And it would shorten and simplify some of the template xml files. Is there an easy way to do this? It seems like it is probably not the result of a single patch, and who knows when it was introduced. Querying the development log for "armor" turns up a mountain of irrelevant tickets.

This is something that really confuses and annoys me. Why do women need a 10 percent damage reduction against every damage type? Why do animals and ranged units need a 10 percent damage reduction against every damage type? Would it have been so game breaking to just let them take the amount of damage it says the attack is supposed to do?

Hm. If arrows are doing 6 damage that means the new templates aren't loading. If it were just the scripts that were broken, the archer should be doing 20 damage per shot. I'm guessing the mod isn't loading at all. For additional confirmation, could you check the hack armor on the pikeman: it should be 18. Just a stupid hunch here, but try reinstalling the my mod by unzipping it in your mods folder. I gather properly built mods are zipped, but I didn't go through that whole process. (I am not a proper computer sciency type--sorry.) Also, is it working for anyone else?