mhat

Agreed - besides preferences of different individuals I can't decide what I want half the time - sometimes I want a fast paced rts that I don't have to think about too much, and other times I want something with more depth!

I agree about the speed of economy - I wouldn't want to see units move any slower when conducting economic activities. Perhaps units inside territory would still move the same speed, but outside of their territory they move at a slower pace? I guess having greater control over battles is why I mentioned this - I feel the pace of battle reduced control because everything is over so quickly. There may be other ways to tackle this though rather than just increasing hitpoints as I suggested.

I like the idea of these sort of battles but I'm not sure about the pause function. If formations are designed to greatly strengthen the force of each of the soldiers within them then this sort of strategy could be incentivized without pausing the game. For example, when arriving at the enemy town, if sending soldiers in to attack gatherers and buildings pulls them out of formation and makes them much more vulnerable to attack, then it might make sense to wait with an army in formation on the outside of the town to see if the defenders can muster their own army. If these incentives were part of the game mechanics then it would make sense for human players and would also inform the design of AI too.

I am the wrong person to comment on historical accuracy, but I would have thought that in ancient warfare battles between formations of units would take a considerable amount of time and involve a significant degree of maneuvering?

I agree, it would need to be well balanced. There is also a risk of alienating some players (why is it taking so long for this guy to die!). I think that if combat itself takes longer then the speed of units needs to slow down as well to prevent one rolling battle lasting forever. The use of formations is also key - and I'm sure this will be continually developed anyway. Perhaps units only last a lot longer in battle when in a formation? (That way a few units by themselves can still be killed quite quickly).

Hi there, First let me say thank you for this amazing project - I have been enjoying each of the releases over the past couple of years. I have one suggestion - apologies as always if this has already been mentioned/discussed/rejected: I like that 0 ad is trying to create a point of difference, but from playing the latest release I find that the combat doesn't yet allow for as much strategic decision making as I would like. This may be unpopular with those who enjoy a faster paced RTS game, but I think that there would be a lot more depth/uniqueness to the combat system if combat itself lasted much longer and units moved slower. If battles between units lasted much longer then there is more opportunity to redistribute units, reinforce particular parts of the battle or find good match ups for units. If, for example, you notice that the opponent has a particular strong group of hoplite units in the centre of the battle that will break through your own units, then reinforcements can be brought there or archers deployed closer to that position. If archers are picking off units on your flank, there is an opportunity to bring in those cavalry units that may have dealt easily with their opponents elsewhere in a battle. Imagine the tension of knowing that your smaller or weaker army will soon be torn apart if you can't quickly get a supporting army in place (this could happen currently, but a weaker army is likely to last a minute at the most so reinforcements are likely to engage in a new battle rather than reinforcing the current one). Slower unit movement would also place more emphasis on strategic decision making in the battle itself. My point is that drastically extending the amount of time that opposing armies are face to face would open up many more opportunities for real strategic decisions and give this game a greater point of difference. For those who have played Sins of a Solar System (I know, completely different setting, but the strategic calculus could be similar) this is closer to what I am thinking. Another example may be the pace of combat in the total war series, though of course there are a much larger number of units present there. I'm probably in the minority by suggesting this, but just thought it is better to put it out there rather than keep it to myself! I'm sure I will keep enjoying 0 AD in any case!

Hi guys, I tend to usually read but in this instance I'm posting Perhaps another idea re: Holding formations could be significantly slowling down unit movement. In RTS games large landscapes are scaled down to much smaller areas, so it also makes sense that unit movement be considerably scaled down. There would also be little point holding a solid formation only for your opponent to run around your formation and attack you from behind. By considerably slowing down unit movement this would allow you to use cavalry as they were traditionally used - protecting the flank, and perhaps also bringing up other troops into those positions. This would also mean that it would be possible to manage multiple battles/demands at one time. If a group of your opponents units were quickly sent around your formations flank then you could possibly miss it if you had been quickly dealing with a different problem. By slowing down unit movement, you would have a lot more time to deal with a possible flanking manoeuvre, even in multiple battles. Just my two cents

Hi, I've been keeping an eye on the site for a while, but have only just signed up to the forum. I don't have any programming skills but would love to help if there are any menial mindless tasks that need doing I can also translate into Indonesian