alre

Ok maybe these could do: walk speed: 10.8 -> same as archers crush armor: 15 -> same as other melee infantry pierce armor: 10 -> same as pikes currently hack armor: 3 -> midway between archers (1) and spear/swordmen (5) damage: 1.5 hack + 1.5 pierce every 1 second -> the bare minimum to make them somehow a threat range: 3 m -> same as swordmen, less than spearmen (4 m) health, bonus against cav: unchanged. So basically they would have the meatshied potential of what pikemen are currently in the game, but they would mealt very easily when confronting another melee fighter, as for the very bad hack armor (compared to pikes) and low damage output - I'm being conservative there because I don't like the whole concept of meatshield and I wouldn't like one to work too well.

I don't think it's fair to say that persian infantry was inferior to any other, they were different, not inferior. Persians fielded light infantry, that is represented in the game by archers. Of course if archers meet heavy infantry in close combat, without possibility of retreating, they lose badly, so I don't think there is need to penalize them further (not only persian archers anyway). On the other hand, persian shield bearers should probably be differentiated from greek hoplites, having more pierce resistance, but less hand-to-hand proficiency. They could also be made faster, so that they can move along archers, as they historically did. But I think we could have much more variety in melee soldiers stats in general.

yeah, unless you actually want to use formations.

Slowing down hurt soldiers has sometimes been proposed, that would have deep strategic gameplay implication and I'm quite usure about it, but we could try it, and see how it plays out. Instead, I would love to see some terrains slow down armies. One obvious choise is marches like the ones in the map Rheine marshland, another one is when climbing up hills. This would add strategic depth to gameplay, but it indeed poses a new problem for the pathfinder. Talking about the pathfinder, does anyone here know about the open source game BAR (beyond all reason)? It features acceleration of units, and elevation affecting units speed.

I tried to raise the turn rate in template_formation, to an'impossibly high value, and I think the turns are (just a slight bit) better. Anyway, for stronger turns I still think that recomputing the whole formation would be better. I also tried recreating a formation with guard command to back soldiers, but predictabily, it was impossible to make anything passable. I was surprised to find out that guarding units move somehow erratically: sometimes those who are expected to move first, only move after those behind them, sometimes they stop too early, only to make a few more steps after a brief pause.

you can shift-click with rally points as well. You have to select the cc, and with the mouse right button, click on a wall segment: trained soldiers will go there and enter the building. If one destination is not enough, you can shift-click to further rally points (shift-right click on wall segments and turrets), so that trained soldiers will go to the first wall element, and if they find it fully occupied, they try with the second, and so on until they have toured all the rally points.

actually dressed fanatic

Yes I figured that. And its pathfinder is handled by c++ code, right? How does it read (if it does) the position of the various units? How does it use it? Would it be possible to fix a value to make rotations instantaneous? Would it be possible to make commands given to formations not pass directly to the "formation controller"? I'm not familiar with either c++ or javascript, but if you'd like to introduce me to the design, and to the nuts and bolts of the formation and pathfinder implementation, I'd like to try my ideas on the code directly.

It's not about battallions, those games, unlike 0AD, don't include base building and are only focused on battle management, hence some more micro for each unit is more fun than encumbering. If we added it to 0AD, it would become almost a necessary move for people using melee units, adding to their required micro. Do you think it's a buff for melee? It's not. Just adding to melee units speed would be a buff, not a user-activated ability that is so relevant that it is necessary. On the other hand, it could be self-activated, but let's stop a moment to consider what we have now: running, the way it is now, is a confusing mechanic that noone in this thread new all the triggers for, it causes inconsistent behaviour and even a proper bug (that @Player of 0AD pointed out). This is what happens when a feature, even one that "is just a gimmick", gets added without extensive testing. And why would we even want to add it? AoE does wonderfully without it! Keep it simple! Keep it simple, silly! By the way, a "berseker mode" that cannot be retreated, like @LetswaveaBook suggested, seems like fun. But not for all units, just as a particular tactic employed by some special unit: naked fanatics would be a natural choice.

We already have heroes (that's how they are called in the game), including three different spartan kings (but not Lysander, unfortunately). Also it's not clear what role would you give them, if different from the one they already have.

Looking better, I think that all the swapping places is not really about the algorithm that assingnes places to each unit, but is rather caused by the recurrent routine that updates the formation, often making men abruptly change direction while manouvring. I'm not sure how that could be fixed, but I hope my proposals could be meliorative in that regard too.

I've looked a bit into binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Formation.js, but I'm not familiar with the code, or with Javascript either, so I'm writing here some suggestions to make formations look better. Assignment of units to formation places At now, when soldiers move into formation, they do a lot of switching places, I can't tell if you have implemented already some algorithm to assign positions to men in an effective way, but if you have not, I can propose a simple one: take the 2d point C = the final destination of the current movement, if men are making the formation in place, take C = centroid of the positions of the men (I believe the script already does this) compute the set F of 2d points representing the final position of all men in formation. These points will be placed around C. If different classes of units should take different places, compute an array of sets instead F_1, F_2... each including the positions that will be taken by each class of units for each class of units K: take the set of points A_K = the current positions of the units of that class make A_K an ordered array, with the farthest from C first, and the closest last for each element P of A_K (in order from the fartest to C, to the closest): take the point in F_K that is closest to P (if not already assigned), and assign the unit in P to that point this should be reasonably fast and effective, often resolving in the best possible assignment of formation slots. Rotation movement At now, formations resort a bit too often to a rotation movement that, to bee honest, feels a lot akward to me, not only it can waste a lot of time, but it feels artificial and unrealistic to me. I've been looking around if videos exist of formations and parades making turns, but unfortunatly I didn't find any. In any case, I have a couple of suggestions to smooth this transition: when the turn is narrow enough (let's say less than 45 degrees) formation movements don't look that bad, however, the rotation still eats time, and during a battle you don't want to lose any time at all. For a comparison, I noticed that when you move a group of scattered soldiers towards some destination, into formation, they will be first converging to the center of their position, but will soon start to move towards the destination, before completing the first movement. Would it be possible to have the same thing when the formation makes a turn? That it starts moving onward before completing the rotation? Maybe it's me, but I don't like formations making rotations, especially large ones, I don't think they are realistic. And probably you already thought about this, but what if formations were instead re-computed from scratch every time they make a turn sharp enough? It doesn't have to happen for smaller turns, but I think it would feel more natural, especially for homogeneus formations (the most usual), when you command a sharp turn. Column formation Sorry if this part won't be as constructive as the others, but I think that column formation, as it is now, should better be removed completely. A column of men is actually better represented in the game by not setting any formation, while the special "column formation", that automatically switches on when you send a formation of men to a distant destination, is rigid, and very akward. The purpose of the column should be saving time by making men move in a flexible shape that follows the road and bends with it, instead, the column in the game even wastes more time than the simple box formation, because its rotations take longer. I don't think there's much to save in current column formation, so I would disable it completely, until a completely new version is possibly introduced. @Grapjas @Angen @wraitii

@LetswaveaBook your idea is interesting, but is very different from how the game is at now. In any case (still taking a page from AoM here) such temporary speeding up ability should be clearly stated as a caracteristic of the unit(s) affected, have clear and simple to understand activation rules, and be visible (in AoM I remember that the main campaign hero had a similar ability, and men affected would show a sort of blue fire around them). A mechanic like the one you propose would have, depending on its precise rules, important gameplay consequences, and is not really comparable to running in the way it works now, which happens in a wholly disjoint set of circumstances. Do you agree that running, as it is now, should better be disabled? (with the possible exception of making formations). Following this, your proposal could be tested with a mod. I myself still hope for a mod that makes units outside formation have randomly different speed.

this is how I would make it: - cs from the beginning: spearman, spearcav and a nerfed ranged troup that could better be a slinger IMO, because sicules were mercenaries to Syracuse - mercs that become cs after passing the reform: skirmisher, swordman, and maybe jav cav too - mercs that don't become cs: archer, maybe a beefier champion/merc like the tyrant's guard the second category could be dealed with by enabling cs training and disabling merc training, or just by enabling cs. I'd actually like if, in addiction to this, all those mercs that you already have become citizens (and keep their experience of course, you paid for it).

If mercenaries are avaiable to phase 1, this will be a possibly very aggressive civ, and I think that's quite fitting, Syracuse was indeed much involved in aggressive warfare. One can imagine trying to get and mantain an edge since early game with mercenary rushes (since they can't gather resources, you would train mercs only to build a couple of buildings maybe, and then send them to war). Since they Syracuse doesn't have a cheap outpost (according to the design by @PyrrhicVictoryGuy they can't even get a second cc, and I like the idea) and they don't have a particularly good cav either, they can only keep striking right on, which is not very convenient. To help them, I'd like to propose a new/different unique bonus: every time you conquer/destroy a house, you get 1/2 slaves at your cc (depending on the capacity of the house). The inspiration comes from the fact that Syracusan tyrants often resorted to deportation on the population of submitted cities, lower class citizen would become slaves. If things don't go well with mercs, or if the strategic situation is against them, a player would have the option to pass "Gelo's reform" (in p2?) and invest into fortifications and trade. Both things Syracuse was well known for. Another thing Syracuse pioneered is bolt shooters, so they could maybe have them in p2, as a further help in defense, after the set down caused by switching to CS economy only after passing a costy tech. Or also as a groung control element when rushing, since they only have bad options for territorial expansion.

It's possible. There are mods around that do that @Grapjas @ChronA @Freagarach. Balancing can come after testing.

Cool, I like them, but aren't them a bit unrealistic as the tyrant's guard? Maybe change the name? It is because they're cheaper.

In any case, I suppose Syracuse should really have slaves, to make mining more convenient.

Gelo, tyrant of Syracuse, gave citenzip to many of his mercenaries, so such a tech could be named "Gelo's reform". It could actually go as far as turning some mercenaries into citizen soldiers. In either case, such a tech would "normalize" Syracuse's economy, therefore taking away a lot of "uniqueness" from its gameplay. Perhaps we could make it a paired tech, alternative to another inspired by another of Syracuse tyrants, "Dyonisus' hetairia" which would not change mercenaries, but would unblock the unique unit of the tyrant's guard, being it a champion that can be trained as fast as mercenaries (it could be javeliners as you proposed I guess, although I don't know why is that). One can imagine deciding between a traditional gameplay, based more on food and wood, or a different economy entirely, when there are a lot of metal mines that can be exploited.

ah ok pensaba que era el arbol de las estructuras final. quiero ver como sale!

they start fleeing at the first hit taken, so they will be quiet if targeted but missed. We could do like Age of Mitology: people don't run, there is no running speed reported in the units stats, but for making formations you can have some soldier move faster than otherwise allowed. I wouldn't mind if that optionwas removed too actually (to be discussed in another thread maybe). This would make the game simpler to understand and more robust (KISS), and it would solve all the issues presented.

I made some more tests. You can make your men flee too, if you put them in passive stance, however, and this holds true for women and priests too, if you command them directly where to flee, they will stop running. So you can't have both your people run for their life, and behave smart.

I think flee running is bad for the game. You have these unshakable men that fight to the last man without hesitation (they actually walk when retreating), but priests run away like babies, they are ridiculous. Also, the triggers are not very sophisticated, for instance when women are hit they run away, but not if you give the alarm, and if you call some of them away from the enemy, also they will be walking. I wasn't sure so I tested it: they run when a target gets out of range, but they only do small sprints, so it's hard to notice. By the way this makes them slow down if you tell them how to chase the enemy, therefore making a dumb AI possibly convenient over a smarter direct order, same as when you have people fleeing. All this running also makes chasing women with jav cavalry very uneffective: the javelin almost never hits. That's not enough for an introduction, to me. Sorry.

I think formation could use a rework. If someone introduces me to the code, I'd like to try something. To be clear, running to join formation is not the problem, for AoE-style formations (like we have, more or less), I agree is kinda necessary, otherwise formations would feel very sluggish as you said.

Honestly, I would disable running entirely.