wraitii

I think, even if you keep a fairly basic combat system, that doing different damage depending on where the shot comes from is an -absolute- necessity. This is something I've never actually seen done... Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not. Anyway, this should be in the game, and it should be documented.

Adding my two cents about formations and formation movement and gameplay addition. Something I remember from Rise Of Nations was that unit got "entrenched" after standing still for some time. This allowed for one thing that I have found in no other RTS: actual flanking. Now while entrenching is likely out of scope for 0 AD, the formation system, if it is kept fairly robust, à la R:TW can simulate such a thing: formations should get a bonus against "front attack", "side defense" or whatever, so it makes sense to use them, and should remain fairly consistent: breaking them up should not be instant ( since this would negate "flanking" ). A way to implement this would be to have some sort of trigger for each unit which would have different states: "Free", ie not in a formation, "in a formation", and "making/breaking formation". Now I'm not sure how the combat system works in 0 AD, but I don't think units individually receive differentiated damage depending on where it's coming (flank/front/rear)... If so, then very well. If not, then it would be a really cool thing to implement. Anyway, units "free" would behave normally, units "in a formation" would get damage depending on what the strong/weak points of the formation are, and basic combat. Units forming or breaking, on the other hand, would be fairly defenseless and would receive much bigger damage. As for how this relates to pathfinding: formations should be a bit slower than normal walking (which would help the pathfinding too), and remain fairly tight when moving forward. I think it should absolutely remain so until it has to "break". The specifics of when it has to break are tricky to choose... I think the most straightforward way to do it is that if keeping the formation deviates the path from more than X degrees from the optimal path, the formation will break (something like 30° seems reasonable). Breaking can be handled in two ways... The ugly one is simply to make each unit behave individually, but this is a nightmare and really not nice. A much better way to "break" a formation is to divide it into smaller "sub-formations", until the sub-formation can go through the obstacles (I'm taking the corridor example here). SO a 8x8 turtle formation could break into 4 4x4 smaller formations, and each would go through one at a time and then reform. This would be the optimal way to manage such a thing, methinks. Of course, with the problem of an object getting partly in the way (such as what was drawn on page 1), a simpler solution of "moving away from the obstacle" should be adopted.

Do you plan on having "wounded" units inflict less damage? It's something that as always bugged me in most RTS: while a unit is alive, it will inflict maximum damage, even if it has 1HP. It's also why it's better to focus on one unit than to "average" damage.

I don't know if you've already read it, but this article might give you some insight about formation pathfinding.

I can't really help you with the coding (well, I could, but I'm on a mac and unable to start the game (I really don't have the skills required), so it would'nt be fun), but here are some guidances: -It's not a bad thing to give the AI a specific to-do list early on(such as : until 2 minutes, food, until 4 minutes, food and wood, and do this and that). The human players usually do just that, and it might make it easier to code the AI. -If the AI is to build towers (and walls if there are in-game), it should know where to properly place them. For walls, it's really a matter of determining what is important and what to protect and build a nice circle around it, but towers are a more strategic matter. It should not clutter more than 2 towers in one area (2 towers are more efficient than one at keeping at bay attacks, but 3 usually is overkill). It should spread the towers so that they share less than 25% of firing range, but there is no hole in "tower coverage" (otherwise it's just too easy for the player to go through). Ultimately, it should try to learn where enemy attacks are coming from and build one or two more towers there. That's not that hard to do, I think, and it's a pretty great AI response. Some graphics to illustrate the towers issue: Bad positioning ( red is the "tower coverage", stars are towers, blue is the sea, sand is ground ) Better positioning. -Giving the ai some "soft-coded" behaviours depending on the map is pretty useful too, along with giving the AI rush/boom/turtling strategies. Some other topics that you might consider adding: -Clever AI, if a lot of space is available, could build houses scarcely. It makes it harder to destroy them all and crash the AI population cap. Or it could build small clutters of 3/4 houses. -Military buildings should be built in priority closer to the enemy position. Economic buildings should be built farther to protect them. -On the same topic, the AI could build "outlooks", that is a single tower far toward the enemy to know about attacks earlier. -For AI attacks, the shortest path is rarely the best. It is much better to alternate between "straight line" attacks and attacks from the side or even the rear if possible. -AI soldiers could be divided into categories. A "guard" section with some solid defensive units, a "raid" section that harasses the enemy (though they must have some clever attack strategies to work), etc. -Micromanagement of units during attack can be the difference between success and failure, I dunno if it already does that but it could be a good improvement far harder AIs. -Again on the "AI response to the player": if the AI attacks, and it sees the player has built numerous towers and walls, it should try to find another attack path, and if there is none, it should note that for further attacks siege engines are required. That's all I can think of right now.

True that. But primary management might be a fun thing to have, such as only building farms near water holes or stuff like that.

Oh, right, I forgot about that. It's not an Idea I love, but I can see why it's practical. As for the "near water", it was more of the "not in the middle of nowhere" Idea. Water is really important, but may be a lot of micromanagement. Of course, I think it would be just great to have a true water management.

Regarding the "water" idea... You could make it only possible to build a city near a water spot. Or barracks, things that build units. I think it would add a nice realistic touch.

Pretty good work, but I'd also suggest darker colours for the background, they look more "pro", and too light colors can be a bit hard to look at in such screens. Maybe you could differentiate winning and losing summary screens? I know some games do so ( I'm pretty sure AgeOf II did so, but It's been a long time since I lost at this game ), and it looks rather nice. You could also try adding some shades to the overall screen, or make textures a bit different, but that's just my tastes.

I must say I highly second the suggestion that was made of having wolves move and act in "packs". This is the kind of thing that separate very good games from great games. Of course, it should not be on top of your priority list Also seconding the supply-cart for attrition games. This was in Rise Of Nations and made for some very interesting tactics where the cart had to be guarded, and made raiding much more interesting. Of course, I also second putting this as an optional setting, because it's not so "conventional". As far as the "clic some units, act/attack on group/formation" thing, I think it's a very good idea, that solves a lot of micromanagement and makes for a much more convenient play. Particularly, if you decide to allow "attack on a whole formation", it would be a pretty neat idea to have units automatically attack the unit they are strong against ( well, actually it would be even better if they had a chance to attack the unit they're strongest against depending on their experience. Basic would attack rather random units, advanced would be more clever, and expert would never fail to target the unit they are strongest against. But that could take some pretty time-consuming AI computing ). I'd keep a setting that would allow to attack a single unit, though. Like an alt+right click would only attack one unit, because it sometimes makes sense to attack a single target ( such as a supply cart, siege engine or particularly strong unit ). As for solving the problem WhiteTreePaladin brought up, I think it should only be activated as a feature if the player selects something like three or more units. If a single unit is selected, it should target the exact target.

Hi, new poster ( French, to make things more lame ), and I just read about the last 30 pages of this topic. I must say passable forests seems like a really great idea. I even think that to normal "units", that is basic soldiers or stuff like that ( small human shaped stuff ), any forest should be passable ( or it would be so dense that you just couldn't get in at that time (0ad) by any mean, even for wood cutting purpose). I know you guys are quite far in the coding process ( and particularly the pathfinding stuff, since going through a forest would juste be a nightmare to code, if you want units to avoid trees ), but that really would make this game awesome ( it's already, get me right, but boy that would just rock ). I'm pretty sure I played a game where some units could go through forests. Must have been scouts in RoN. RoN was such an innovative RTS ( and an amazing game imo ), I'm still amazed that it has left no real legacy.