BreakfastBurrito_007

I feel like this would be too automatic as well. @Jofursloft's idea is great in my opinion because now there are two ways for melee to be a meat shield: 1 to be in front and stop melee from reaching ranged units, 2 to mix with ranged units and prevent an enemy from isolating them in the "target box". @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Freagarach does @Jofursloft's idea sound feasible to you?

If melee unit charging was implemented alongside this, then there would certainly be great ways to use melee beyond the meat shield. I would argue that having both these features would make 0ad combat more fun, more skillful, and more advanced compared to other rts games.

ok @alre, definitely my idea is too much overkill. I think the best one so far is @Jofursloft's as long as it can be done without performance loss.

I thought about this, and also your concern about melee units being less important due to their meat-shield role becoming less automatic. Do you think a nice way to balance between the two mechanics (1. shooting closest and 2. using your idea, the "targeting-box") would be for ranged units to "panic" at 15% of their total range and ignore the targeting-box so that they can shoot the closest unit?

In 0ad right now infantry battles are decided by which side kills the other's melee first. This means that the melee units that tank the most damage are the most useful, like pikemen. The feature like you mentioned in "magnetic pikemen" would be great as long as it did not did not cause perfomance problems (I don't know if it would or not). There are still ways pikes could act as a meat shield rather than a meat magnet: Ranged units could follow close to pikemen so that they can mooch off of the armor of the pikemen since they would most likely be in the same "targeting-box". In this situation, ranged units are in a location more vulnerable to higher dps melee units like swords. The main goals of the changes are to allow more player choice and make the natural behavior of 0ad units less overbearing.

Do you think it would be too much overkill to make it a worthwhile option? Going by the average 0ad army size, it would probably be a lot of overkill on the first and second volleys, but after that not so much, since the "targeted group" would expand out from where the first attack was. @alre do you agree that it would be beneficial to gameplay?

@hyperion @Player of 0AD I agree that performance issues are a primary concern. I was thinking rather than having a filter or smart unit behavior, the ranged units would attack the units closest to where their last target was when they killed it. So if a player wanted to attack a particular group of units, he would just choose one, and then the ones next to it would be the next targets. A player could still target the closest enemies by attack-clicking a closer enemy. If the ranged units are given no order, but are simply set still next to enemies (using "h") then they could default to shooting closest enemies.

In previous alphas the idea that units always attack the closest enemy has not been debated much, because recent alphas were about ranged vs ranged balance, for example: "slingers op" of a23. and "archers op" of a24. In these previous alphas, melee units did not matter as much as they do in a25. The gameplay balancing has gotten better, and more complicated since those alphas. In my opinion, this tendency of the ranged units to shoot the closest enemy results in some balancing issues that are not due to any units particular stats. And if we were able to choose our targets, then the options increase for the player and there are more opportunities for skill to succeed. My main question is: what part of the game would break if ranged units were able to shoot other units besides the closest enemies? I welcome debate, but I don't welcome slander.

When in doubt, just make 3 or 4 blacksmiths because they are cheap and you will need them later, this makes the p3 requirement less of a hassle.

@LetswaveaBookI like both these hotkey options, but I think I would use the easier “ungarrison all healthy” button most frequently. I imagine players who are very fast would like to use the “A+S” hotkeys for selecting cav for rushing. I feel giving more control over these things is very important and allows for a greater “skill ceiling”.

Ok perhaps the best way to explain it is like the Gaia groups that are sent on maps like Danubius. The animals would not be running away from you already and they would be walking in a predictable path that you would already know. I don’t think hunting this would be very challenging, what will be challenging is the timing of the hunt and the potential early map control battles that could result from it. Keep in mind this idea is not meant to replace the existing hunting. I agree that rubber-banding effect would be nice to keep the static herds (already in 0ad) together.

Perhaps I did not elaborate enough. I actually never noticed the migration in AoE3. I was thinking the animals are not even on the map for the first x minutes, then like 50 bison type animals spawn in from one edge and go across the map and then disappear off the edge for another interval. They would move as a group in a straight line with no stopping, so if players want to hunt they need to do it while the migration is happening. I would think this can exist alongside the current hunt behavior.

In 0ad all herds of Animals are static. I was hiking yesterday and thought what if a map or some maps could have a migration of huntable animals from one side of the map to the other at a time interval. For 1v1s it would go from one side to the other across the middle of the map. For TGs it would go across between the two teams. Every 5 minutes the herd comes back but no new animals are generated, (it saves the number from the last migration). Tell me what you think of the idea. I think it would be awesome for gameplay and visuals, but probably not a mainstream feature of most games of 0ad.

People have been saying that javelins are op, but I think if they are it is only slightly. In a25 they feel op but this is because of the way infantry fights always go. Melee die first with almost no damage to ranged units even if you try to target them. Because of this the best ranged unit is the one that can kill melee the fastest: skirmishers. If ranged units were able to shoot at the back of a group of enemies, then pikes would seem less op and skirmishers would also be less op. Stat wise these units are quite balanced, but because of this mechanism, we see op skirms. there has been a good discussion and some great ideas posted on the “magnetic pikemen” page.

I am in support of removing international trade bonus and instead giving it to the “Gaia market” (or trade post as it is called in aoe4) In 1v1s and TGs the Gaia market would be in the middle of the map (or in some other fair location). This means a 1v1 player who trades to the Gaia market can have better trade than their enemy. I feel this solution removes the gameplay issues of international trade bonus and it also makes trade a more interesting and varied mechanic. Also the AoE3 trade routes were very gimmicky and forced in my opinion.

2 things would be super fun: observer flares observers see allied chat of teams Also, I wonder if it is possible to add in-game voice chat?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone@chrstgtr I also notice that in TGs I see good players who have a lot of fun rushing sometimes get carried away and do what I call "over-rush". What happens is the value of further rushes decreases and the overall effect is that you slow yourself down. Sometimes I see one super successful rush where the victim is then placed very far behind in boom, and the attacker can either use the population lead to have a faster boom and finish the victim later or the attacker can keep rushing. If a weaker player has a successful rush against a better player, they might want to keep rushing even if it slows themself down, because the weaker player was less critical to their own team. Sometimes a game can be lost by a good player slowing themselves down by continuing to rush a player who is already behind from the first rush.

I agree certainly that melee units being mainly a meat shield is not a good result for the use of melee infantry. Actually, in the "magnetic pikemen" discussion @Jofursloft and I were discussing the benefits of ranged units being able to effectively target other ranged units in the back of a battle. What this would do is allow for the targeting of other ranged units, rather than the melee always dying first, and because of this melee units could become more than meat-shields.

I can't say for the other players but it is my feeling that melee/ranged balance is quite good at the moment.

A "capture the wonder" or "king of the hill" gamemode could be quite fun. I feel like these are features that would be great to have as optional add-ons for games of 0ad rather than core features.

Usually it is better to leave behind enough units on the various resources needed so that you are able to train replacements to your army. I think it is more risky (to your team) to not attack. If you have 100 extra units in your base gathering res instead of fighting, you will accumulate lots of extra resources which you are unable to use since you are already at the pop cap (assuming you have all the upgrades you want). For this reason the units have more value if they are used to fight. Also, if you attack first, you can usually decide where to fight, since it is now your enemies' goal to limit the damage you do to them. Also, attacking does not necessarily mean moving directly to someones base, it can also mean flanking their army, gaining a position close to their base that they don't like, building offensive buildings, or causing an economically unfavorable reaction from your enemy.

And in 4v4, it is possible to come back, but it requires a good strategy and helpful teammates. In a24, I observed that comebacks were sort of enforced by the gameplay mechanics and balance, such as building garrisoned arrows being very powerful. In a 4v4, a player could be nearly finished, but then rebuild somewhere else quite easily because of how hard it was to move around the map. In one game, @Dizaka built his city faster than @chrstgtr could destroy it, he built something like 10-15 forts in a counter-clockwise direction around the edge of the map. I agree that we don't want to have as many player-independent snowballs, like loot. I think a great example of something good that can be called a snowball is healers like @Feldfeld said. Keep in mind that in a24 attacking was like building a snowball in 50 degree heat.

Be careful when doing this, because sometimes if you are losing the fight and your troops are still trickling in, then you run the risk of throwing away units.

@Yekaterina iber houses are a little large despite being 5 pop, and the walls make it a bit cluttered too so sometimes 10pop houses are easier

It is true that CS cavalry can be stopped fairly easily by spearmen, and if you expect a late-game cavalry raid, you can build well sealed walls and palisades to stop them, but this requires a lot of planning to do in advance and a lot of economic loss if doing it too late. It does take a lot more effort and skill to counter cavalry raiding than it does to do the raiding, so training 10-15 consular bodyguards is an easy way to gain an advantage over an otherwise better player. A defending player needs to either see it coming, or have 30+ spearmen fight your cav while building walls/palisades, which is more effort and economic loss than it takes to train 10-15 consular bodyguards and run around someones base. I will take your advice to use stone walls though.