SUGGESTION - garrisoned units should die when the building is destroyed

[Vantha]

It always feels wrong to see an entire building collapsing and then all garrisoned units standing on the debris completely unharmed. It would be accurate and realistic to have the units take at least a little bit of damage from the collapsing building. So here's what I suggest, two possibilities:

- Every time a building takes damage, all garrisoned units inside the building take a bit of crush damage as well.

or

- when a building takes damage, units garrisoned inside do NOT take damage, but when the building is destroyed and collapses all units take a larger amount of crush damage that is about enough to kill them.

This would prevent turtling (even though I think that turtling is not a big problem right now) as players would now have to think twice before fully garrisoning a fortress because of how easily they could lose all garrisoned units to just a few catapults if they're not paying attention.

It would also open new possible strategies.
For example, one player retreats and garrisons his units inside a temple to heal them and bring them back to full health. The other player could now attack the temple from a distance with catapults and thus forcing his opponent to ungarrison and stop healing his troops.

What do you think?

 

[Player of 0AD]

I'm against it, because one would need to micro-manage more. For example one would need to ungarrison just before the building is destroyed. Or if there is the threat of a capture, you dont only need to destroy the building, but you also need to ungarrison just before that, which makes it even harder to prevent your enemy from getting it.

Damaging garrisoned units might be an unfair advantage for catapult civs.

[Vantha]

7 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

one would need to micro-manage more.

It depends, if you play very defensive and are turtling and you have 10 garrisoned buildings, then.. yeah, it will be a lot of micromanaging. But most players don't play very defensive and most of the time have 2 maybe 3 buildings with a few units garrisoned, these buildings will most likely be in areas they need to pay attention to anyways. Plus, even if they lose these units due to the buildings getting destroyed in most cases they would have lost those units anyway. And it's just a few units and not a game changing loss.

 

7 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

Or if there is the threat of a capture, you dont only need to destroy the building, but you also need to ungarrison just before that, which makes it even harder to prevent your enemy from getting it.

Of course, every time you destroy one of your buildings yourself all garrisoned units inside that building should automatically ungarrison so you don't accidentally kill your own units by deleting buildings.

 

7 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

Damaging garrisoned units might be an unfair advantage for catapult civs.

As I said, this feature won't make catapults overpowered and would just be a small advantage for catapult civs. And most catapult civs (like Athenians, Carthaginians) are one of the worse and less used civs anyway.

How about a research technology that reduces the damage taken by garrisoned units from the building getting damaged?

 

Also, garrisoned units get healed, so when a building gets damaged but not destroyed the garrisoned units will get damaged but regenerate back to full health over time.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Vantha

[hyperion]

1 hour ago, Vantha said:

It always feels wrong to see an entire building collapsing and then all garrisoned units standing on the debris completely unharmed. It would be accurate and realistic to have the units take at least a little bit of damage from the collapsing building. So here's what I suggest, two possibilities:

There is something called EjectHealth, so units get ejected even before collapse. If they can't be ejected they die, example ship far off shore. Works currently exactly as title requests.

"Accurate and realistic" is a broken argument, it doesn't care at all about play-ability and could even be used to argue for the opposite just as well, like who in their right mind wouldn't evacuate before it's to late ...

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Yeah, adding this tiny drop of realism only to then have to account for several downstream effects doesn’t make sense.

it’s better to work on other areas for “realism” like art and animations.

[Vantha]

On 24/04/2023 at 8:44 PM, hyperion said:

Accurate and realistic" is a broken argument

 

On 24/04/2023 at 9:27 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah, adding this tiny drop of realism only to then have to account for several downstream effects doesn’t make sense.

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough, but my main point is NOT that garrisoned units should take damage because it is realistic.
I suggest it because it would open up new opportunities and strategies and prevent turtling ...(as I explained above)

 

On 24/04/2023 at 8:44 PM, hyperion said:

There is something called EjectHealth, so units get ejected even before collapse. If they can't be ejected they die, example ship far off shore. Works currently exactly as title requests.

I now that the title is a bit misleading... I don't mean the units should deleted or killed when the building is destroyed, they should be ejected just like usual. What I suggest is they take crush damage after getting ejected from the building, that damage does not necessarily need to be enough to kill them.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Vantha

[real_tabasco_sauce]

29 minutes ago, Vantha said:

I suggest it because it would open up new opportunities and strategies and prevent turtling ...(as I explained above)

It seems like this would be more of an annoyance than a feature. There are better ways to prevent turtling, like changing ram hack armor, and the random targeting of building arrows.

if more opportunities and strategies are of interest, then it is better to add new features (like a bunch of new upgrades) rather than complicate a perfectly sound existing feature.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Vantha said:

strategies and prevent turtling ...(as I explained above)

Oh ....turtling the most used strategy for 0AD...

 

Removing one of three strategies seems to me to be a very weak argument.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[Vantha]

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

There are better ways to prevent turtling, like changing ram hack armor, and the random targeting of building arrows.

 

13 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Removing one of three strategies seems to me to be a very weak argument.

Please read what everything I'm saying before replying. I do NOT want to prevent turtling. This is just a very small step towards offensive strategies, and it can help to prevent games where nobody attacks for 40 minutes and just builds ten fortresses and five walls...which (I think)- everybody can agree on -is a good thing.

 

13 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

....turtling the most used strategy for 0AD...

Again ... Please read what I'm saying before replying. I never said turtling is the most used strategy and I CLEARLY explained that I know that turtling is not a big problem right now.

 

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

like a bunch of new upgrades

And again ... Please read what I'm saying before replying. I already suggested also adding a new upgrade that decreases the damage taken by your own garrisoned units.

 

Currently I don't see why this is a bad idea. I'm just thinking: Why not? Why not make this small change to make it a bit harder for extremely defensive players, make catapults a bit better (they're harder to use then rams), also making some bad civs better and  open up an opportunity for new upgrades? And garrisoned units taking damage would be very logical and would make a lot of sense( even though this is not my main argument!). Why not?

You all might be correct as you probably have more gameplay experience than me. And this might be a bad idea. But, if so, then give me actual reasons.

(Please read everything before replying, I don't want to repeat everything over and over again)

I hope you understand

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Vantha said:

make catapults

Iberian players,? lol.

Your argument is already going wrong.

3 minutes ago, Vantha said:

bad civs better and  open up an opportunity for new upgrades?

Explain in detail your idea how this is going to improve? I don't see it.

It seems to me that you are assuming that we are mind readers.

very logical. Indeed, very undesirable.

Now force the players to eject the units and then destroy the tower.

 

In my opinion it seems more of a personal convenience.

 

In my experience as soon as you destroy the tower and it has a superior army, no matter if there is damage or not, they will die.

9 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Again ... Please read what I'm saying before replying. I never said turtling is the most used strategy and I CLEARLY explained that I know that turtling is not a big problem right now.

It was sarcasm, read it again I don't want to repeat it.

 

What I am saying is that you are going to destroy one of the least used tactics. And at least you will give them a hard time.

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 minutes ago, Vantha said:

where nobody attacks for 40 minutes

I have never seen such a thing in this game.

 

In 0AD the best players don't destroy you by playing defensively.

 

Turtling is very unfeasible.

 

I will consult an expert or a couple.

 

@Yekaterina @borg-

Have you ever seen such a thing?

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, Vantha said:

ten fortresses and five walls

8-10 rams get a good work take one by one + an overwhelming army.

[borg-]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I have never seen such a thing in this game.

 

In 0AD the best players don't destroy you by playing defensively.

 

Turtling is very unfeasible.

 

I will consult an expert or a couple.

 

@Yekaterina @borg-

Have you ever seen such a thing?

This does not happen in minimally competitive games. Some players like cesar like to use turtle, but it is rarely effective, catapults and rams can do the job. 40 minutes of no attacks happen only in extremely casual games. In minimally competitive games, you can end the game in the first few minutes with a cavalry rush for example.

[Lion.Kanzen]

13 minutes ago, borg- said:

This does not happen in minimally competitive games. Some players like cesar like to use turtle, but it is rarely effective, catapults and rams can do the job. 40 minutes of no attacks happen only in extremely casual games. In minimally competitive games, you can end the game in the first few minutes with a cavalry rush for example.

Tal como eu pensei./ Just as I thought.

 

 

[Vantha]

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

Explain in detail your idea how this is going to improve? I don't see it.

Upgrade to increase crush armour of units, upgrade to decrease damage taken by garrisoned units, upgrade to make units heal faster inside buildings,...

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

In my opinion it seems more of a personal convenience.

This is wrong. It's actually the opposite. My rating is ~ 1200 and in most games I play just about 2-3 buildings get garrisoned, so it would basically no difference. When I play Team games I play against better players and most of the time I am the one who is garrisoning units. This would actually be a disadvantage for me.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

It was sarcasm, read it again I don't want to repeat it

I am not dumb. I understood this was sarcasm. And maybe YOU should read what I am saying because I did repeat it. I already said TWICE that turtling is not a big problem right now. And I NEVER said many players are turtling so there is no need to be sarcastic.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

What I am saying is that you are going to destroy one of the least used tactics.

Again, this will not "destroy" turtling. This would just make a very very very small difference.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

It seems to me that you are assuming that we are mind readers.

You don't need to read my mind you need to read my reply.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:28 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

In my experience as soon as you destroy the tower and it has a superior army, no matter if there is damage or not, they will die.

This is not an argument against it. In that case it would just make no difference.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:33 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

8-10 rams get a good work take one by one + an overwhelming army.

When did I say it was hard to take down ten fortresses and five walls? Read what I'm saying!

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:32 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

In 0AD the best players don't destroy you by playing defensively.

Please tell me where I claimed that.

 

On 26/04/2023 at 2:32 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

I have never seen such a thing in this game.

As I said my rating is ~ 1200 and in many games I play there are no attacks before any one reaches phase 3. And especially in 2v2 with weaker players it sometimes happens that no players attacks until 40 minutes or so. It would be good to encourage weaker players to attack earlier as this would make the game more interesting and more divers. And just because it does not happen to the pros doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Pro players know how to rush and attack earlier. But most weaker players don't because it's harder. I am NOT saying this is a big problem.

 

 

It's not that hard to understand: THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS CHANGE. It's not like the game is unplayable without it. I am not suggesting it because it solves any problem. I am not suggesting it to prevent turtling. I am not suggesting it because the way it is now is very unrealistic. But that's not how video games work. Not every change is urgent necessary to solve a problem. Many  Things just get added to have new, more, and more divers gameplay mechanics. And not to solve an issue. And that's my point. I am suggesting something new, that would bring maybe new strategies, ... .Additionally, Units getting damaged by collapsing buildings WOULD make sense and be realistic. (You literally can't say anything against that). And as I said would in many ways make small steps into the right direction. And I just want to hear other people's opinions on it. As I said, this idea is certainly not perfect. And it may be bad. But than tell me what's wrong instead of just  reading one single sentence I wrote and telling me how wrong it is.

And please read everything I wrote before replying.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, Vantha said:

It's not that hard to understand: THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS CHANGE. It's not like the game is unplayable without it. I am not suggesting it because it solves any problem. I am not suggesting it to prevent turtling.

Correct, it is preventing something that does not bother many.

 

As you said, it is a suggestion. And as it is, there is no further opinion on my part.

5 minutes ago, Vantha said:

And please read everything I wrote before replying.

 

As I said above, I will no longer give my opinion and it's over.

 

PS:The posts die when they do not receive an answer.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

27 minutes ago, Vantha said:

I am not suggesting it because it solves any problem. I am not suggesting it to prevent turtling. I am not suggesting it because the way it is now is very unrealistic. But that's not how video games work. Not every change is urgent necessary to solve a problem. Many  Things just get added to have new, more, and more divers gameplay mechanics. And not to solve an issue.

27 minutes ago, Vantha said:

Units getting damaged by collapsing buildings WOULD make sense and be realistic. (You literally can't say anything against that). And as I said would in many ways make small steps into the right direction.

This is funny.

28 minutes ago, Vantha said:

But than tell me what's wrong

1. The idea would create more problems than gameplay features.
2. Most people would be against it even by principle (buildings are supposed to protect those inside).
3. Probably would be a little difficult to implement.
4. It doesn't really fit with the level of detail of other gameplay mechanics. (the idea has too much detail, then to add an upgrade to affect something so peculiar doesnt make sense).

All in all, the juice is not worth the squeeze. (and the juice tastes bad)

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This is funny.

1. The idea would create more problems than gameplay features.
2. Most people would be against it even by principle (buildings are supposed to protect those inside).
3. Probably would be a little difficult to implement.
4. It doesn't really fit with the level of detail of other gameplay mechanics. (the idea has too much detail, then to add an upgrade to affect something so peculiar doesnt make sense).

All in all, the juice is not worth the squeeze. (and the juice tastes bad)

 

The problem is that this guy is thinking only about Towers walls and fortress and is not thinking about the civic center and its economy (women villagers) being destroyed by this implementation.

 

Because this mean you just do a Rush to the  fields where the women are and GG.

the CC will not be able to keep the villagers alive.

[Gurken Khan]

26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

All in all, the juice is not worth the squeeze. (and the juice tastes bad)

Yup.

[Vantha]

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Most people would be against it even by principle (buildings are supposed to protect those inside).

I actually agree with you in this point. Having garrisoned units getting damaged would kind of contradict the purpose of buildings protecting garrisoned units. But how about units getting damaged when the building is destroyed?

 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This is funny.

What is so funny about that?

 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The idea would create more problems than gameplay features.

What problems?

 

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

It doesn't really fit with the level of detail of other gameplay mechanics. (the idea has too much detail, then to add an upgrade to affect something so peculiar doesnt make sense).

How is adding an upgrade for units crush armour peculiar?

 

5 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The problem is that this guy is thinking only about Towers walls and fortress and is not thinking about the civic center and its economy (women villagers) being destroyed by this implementation.

 

Because this mean you just do a Rush to the  fields where the women are and GG.

the CC will not be able to keep the villagers alive.

As I said I admit that garrisoned units getting damaged would be dumb. But what if units get damaged whenever the building collapses?

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

The bottom line is that people will get behind features that are impactful, fit with the scope of the game, and are fun to use.

The proposal fits none of these:

• It makes a fairly small practical difference, not noticeable unless you are looking for it. I would expect little change to gameplay.
• it is outside the level of detail 0ad seeks to simulate (For example , wouldn't it seem silly to individually train horses and then put units on each one for cavalry)
• Lastly, I don't see this being fun at all. There is no strategy one can enact, and no real benefit to either the garrisoning player or the destroying player. I'd say it could only result in annoyance that one's units died to a building collapse.

Thats not even considering the development effort, which might not be that bad: Giving buildings death damage as seen in iberian fire ships, and ensuring it only effects own units.

But, compare this to a recently added feature that satisfies all three: Elephants gain a splash attack.

• Makes a large difference, changing the role of elephants from a siege unit to more of a versatile fighting unit.
• it fits the scope of 0ad perfectly, and in particular furthers the historical aspect of the game.
• I bet they will be very fun to use with this splash attack, since it gives eles the power the infantry fighting power they deserve.

I hope you can see that in this case, the juice is not worth the squeeze. 

[Freagarach]

@Vantha https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/GarrisonHolder.js$13 in combination with e.g. https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_structure_defensive_tower.xml$42.

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

But, compare this to a recently added feature that satisfies all three: Elephants gain a splash attack.

Thanks! :D

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

@Vantha https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/GarrisonHolder.js$13 in combination with e.g. https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_structure_defensive_tower.xml$42.

Thanks!

Did you add trample damage?

[hyperion]

12 hours ago, Vantha said:

As I said I admit that garrisoned units getting damaged would be dumb. But what if units get damaged whenever the building collapses?

I wouldn't call it dumb at all but something deserving a fair discussion, fire damage could be changed to damage garrisoned units to sell it as plausible but then people will pop up and request torch throwers, so I'd rather not

As for units getting damaged on collapse, I don't think that's helpful in making turtleing actually useful but still beatable across all skill levels. To get there I'm pretty sure all civs need some ranged siege and repairing needs to cost some resources.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, hyperion said:

I wouldn't call it dumb at all but something deserving a fair discussion, fire damage could be changed to damage garrisoned units to sell it as plausible but then people will pop up and request torch throwers, so I'd rather not

That is another discussion that I had raised.

If it is fire damage you are right, I have raised it myself several times and I am not the only one.

 

I already mentioned several times units that commit arson by burning buildings and start to dying in the attack.

 

Technically, work is being done on fire damage and on expanding that damage.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen