[Design] Formations and battalions as tool of more tactical combats

[Lion.Kanzen]

The idea is how we can make the game more tactical, easy to control, interesting to watch.(What sells the most visually about the game is that the combats are attractive).

 

Without losing the RTS essence.

2 objectives are sought:

Greater unit control, especially melee infantry.

Greater management by allowing better control of groups of units and therefore being able to create basic tactics.

.that the units can be arranged in various divisions and individually controlled.

They even form large impassable blocks.

 

Together they form solid, or nearly solid missile defenses when moving in formation.

 

Maneuverability is important.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics

Some concepts need to be kept in mind.

[sternstaub]

disclaimer: writer not very familiar with current implementation. 

1) 

separate the formation from actual unit position; make units behave around this fictional formation. these are like little flags in the ground with "unit IDs" on it (being pictural here)
this can provide a useful set of data. would be possible for example to get n rows from either flank and break them out to perform a flank attack. Also gives an option to make formation movement calculation cache friendly. the interesting part here would be by which patterns units can be selected from a formation, like "select middle row" or "select the 4 left columns". This can be used for very intuitive user interfacing.
This array of flags should be dynamic and change when units die. some unpleasant effects should be accounted for in that case. for example a unit from the left side of the formation might be placed to the right side and then start walking there, costing dps. that kind of stuff should be avoided. hence, maybe only remove the flags without auto regrouping the formation. maybe not. hard to say now.

2)

as suggested elsewhere, use mouse draw to make things intuitive for user. plus, it gives more controls which can be assigned to the implementation of some fancy movements - whichever these may be in the end. there already is the unit selection which uses mouse drawing, so the mouse draw operation is already implemented somewhere i guess?
(i would suggest the same for pings, by the way, but that is a different topic)

3)

differentiate between attack formations and standing down / holding ground tight and loose/attack/move formations. -> different formation categories
i. attack loose/attack/move formations would not neccessarily need such flag formations (->1), because the attack occurs only once. i would rather call it "attack move (formation)" instead of "attack formation". it might make sense to give a maximum range for an attack move, so that unit groups must first be set up at the battlefield. This is kind of a coreography for the units. The coreography stops as the unit is engaged into the combat, then it attacks the closest enemy. 
maybe i am thinking too much about cavalry charges here. A line or square formation or a shield wall can of course also offensivley move towards an enemy. Maybe it makes more sense to differentiate between tight and loose formations? 
ii. standing down using tight formations would spawn a formation (->1) in a certain place, and units stick tight to the formation when they are attacked. They do not wander off for more than a certain radius from their spot.
iii. an idea would also be to have units lose the formation (->1) after some time. This would force the commander to perform regroups. additional factors like morale can be taken into account. certain civs could be stronger at holding tight formations, while other are better at attack move (formation). the former meaning better defensive gameplay, the latter meaning the opposite.

4)

the ability to merge different unit groups into one formation temporarily can also be interesting. you want your archers to stand behind your melees, but when the line is failing, you want the archers to run first - without disbanding the whole formation.
So wait, the formation itself is a temporary container of pointers to units, kind of. if unit is losing formation, that spot in the formation can be set to nullptr. the duration of the different formations (or of how long different units retain their formations) may vary.

 

some input, more to come.

more: 

maybe give capture points to formations like buildings, and add cooldown to reform? where a flank attack does more damage to the formation and sets single soldiers on "flee" for a short time?

Edited March 3, 2023 by sternstaub

[Lion.Kanzen]

14 minutes ago, sternstaub said:

the ability to merge different unit groups into one formation temporarily can also be interesting. you want your archers to stand behind your melees, but when the line is failing, you want the archers to run first - without disbanding the whole formation.
So wait, the formation itself is a temporary container of pointers to units, kind of. if unit is losing formation, that spot in the formation can be set to nullptr. the duration of the different formations (or of how long different units retain their formations) may vary.

there should be mixed formations and formations that seek only to be a block.

Also cohort mode to separate units into different commandos (regiments).

 

It would be a mode that does not allow mixing troops from other battalions and does not allow mutability of the group.

[sternstaub]

8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

there should be mixed formations and formations that seek only to be a block.

Also cohort mode to separate units into different commandos (regiments).

 

It would be a mode that does not allow mixing troops from other battalions and does not allow mutability of the group.

sounds like having battallions (= fixed group) and formations? 

Edited March 3, 2023 by sternstaub

[Lion.Kanzen]

52 minutes ago, sternstaub said:

sounds like having battallions (= fixed group) and formations? 

at least one method so that units are not mixed up.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

  

6 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think the intent was that giving the cavalry a buff just because they are in a triangle shape seems artificial/forced.

Instead, one could increase unit pushing values so they cannot stack super well as a blob. Then, you could increase the compactness of some formations so that an easy way to get a nice compact force is to organize. For example, box and wedge could be made a little tighter, and the phalanx even more so. (perhaps disable unit pushing for formations? not sure how that would turn out)

Formations are used in competitive play sometimes, but its just box. There are cases where I would like to use a formation, but it's not quite the shape I am after. There are also some kind of redundant formations. In addition to the previous idea, you could diversify some of the more generic formations (one super wide single file line; maybe a tightly packed outward facing circle)

Here is another idea:

formation for splitting melee from ranged:

enemy

-Melee units-

some midsized gap

-Ranged units-

Quoting from the other discussion to include the above ideas here.

In general, I don't think a large-scale revision is needed here. I think just some changes to unit pushing and adding/adjusting existing formations can be perfectly effective.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

An easy way to make formations more useful would be to remove the "march" form for each formation. If I want my units to be in a formation, they should stay that way instead of organizing and reorganizing into a "march" just to move 100 meters.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

24 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

An easy way to make formations more useful would be to remove the "march" form for each formation. If I want my units to be in a formation, they should stay that way instead of organizing and reorganizing into a "march" just to move 100 meters.

I'm starting to agree with this. Can still keep "Forced March" as a formation that gives a speed boost and -1 all armor (vulnerable to ambush), but only with player input.

Edited March 13, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

40 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm starting to agree with this. Can still keep "Forced March" as a formation that gives a speed boost and -1 all armor (vulnerable to ambush), but only with player input.

this means that there would be a dedicated panel in the GUI for battalion orders.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[real_tabasco_sauce]

24 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

this means that there would be a dedicated panel in the GUI for battalion orders.

No, that would just add another layer of complexity.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone just described “March” as being another formation.

I am still unsure if I support giving formations stats.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

No, that would just add another layer of complexity.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone just described “March” as being another formation.

I am still unsure if I support giving formations stats.

Ideally, units should be given stat bonuses.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Ideally, units should be given stat bonuses.

Well, its kind of a strange thing to add, there are pros and cons. One point of concern is that a group of units can be in a "formation" but UnitAI can still move them out of it. What this means is that the formations bonus still applies even if the units are not in the shape of the formation. If the bonus only applies while they are in position, then it doesn't help melee units at all.

I'm not saying the current behavior is bad necessarily, its just that its weird to have some effect even when the formation is effectively disbanded.

If these are added, I think they would all have to be completely neutral tradeoffs, which would require some careful balancing.

for example: wedge gets +10% damage but -50% acceleration.

[alre]

11 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

An easy way to make formations more useful would be to remove the "march" form for each formation. If I want my units to be in a formation, they should stay that way instead of organizing and reorganizing into a "march" just to move 100 meters.

this is actually already quite agreed on, there is a poll somewhere in this forum. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ideas

 Cover mode from AoE III  for hand infantry. Cover mode halves damage the units take from ranged attacks, but they move slower and the damage that THEY deal is halved.

 

Cover mode: Available to hand infantry units. It divides damage taken from ranged and siege sources by 2, at the expense of dividing attack and speed by 2 as well.

Stances are a gameplay feature in Age of Empires III. Also called Tactics in the UI, they are a feature that mixes the traditional behavior stances and some formation elements of previous Age of Empires. Before the Definitive Edition, unit stances must be enabled by a UI option called Show advanced unit formations.

 

I would call it Shieldwall.

 

Originally, unit formations were considered for inclusion in Age of Empires III with elements similar to Total War. However, this feature was scrapped and replaced by the unit stances and formations.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Unit_stance_(Age_of_Empires_III)

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

I like your idea of Max attackers could work with these implementations. 

Do you have any idea how to avoid Mosh Pit ?

Perhaps an instruction that makes the units not get disordered or try to maintain formation and another that allows flanking or encircling.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 13/03/2023 at 6:05 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Ideally, units should be given stat bonuses.

My friend gismox suggested that the formations give bonuses.