Battle formation bonuses

[Obskiuras]

An interestic point of 0 A.D is the battle formation of most of the faction in the game: Phalanx for Greeks, Testudo for Romans, etc. But, does not exist are battle formation bonuses, wich is a drawback because it´s necesary. Melee units die very quickly againts ranged units, witch make very hard to invade enemy city and forces the player to use specific units like cavalry, rendering melee units useless. The necesary solution is implement battle formation bonuses for each faction in the game, add defence bonus againts melee attack to Phalanx and testudo formation, and add defence bonus againts ranged attack with a shield wall formation.

Here an example of Celt shield wall formation:

[Emacz]

We gave them bonuses in Historical via aura.

My understanding is currently formations don't quite work, you cant attack in formation.  So the only way to apply bonuses is through auras.  Hopefully it is something that will get looked at and implemented in the future.  Its a great idea!

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

My only problem with "sticky" formations is that the enemy is often not using formations and now you have 20 guys in your formation focus-stabbing 1 of the enemy's guys at a time. Formations like desired are much better if all soldiers on both sides are in formations as well. so you have formation vs. formation. 

[Obskiuras]

12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

My only problem with "sticky" formations is that the enemy is often not using formations and now you have 20 guys in your formation focus-stabbing 1 of the enemy's guys at a time. Formations like desired are much better if all soldiers on both sides are in formations as well. so you have formation vs. formation. 

Well, that´s the point of add battle formation bonuses. You will have an advantage in the game if you use it.

Edited Friday at 01:07 by Obskiuras

[real_tabasco_sauce]

units don't actually fight in the formation, and selecting a formation over another just for the bonus and not for the formation of the units is gimmicky.

I think formations are fine to remain as-is for organizing troops and for cosmetic reasons. There are more straightforward ways to address the issues you raised, like some speed balance and diverging the different roles of units.

[Obskiuras]

@real_tabasco_sauce

1. "units don´t actually fight in the formation" wrong, if you put your troops in front the enemy´s units they will fight while maintaining formation.

2. The battle formation exist to be an advantage in battle, no one chooses battle formation for cosmetic but for win.

3. Bonuses are not rare in this game, for example range bonus: ir you build a tower in high ground, it´ll have more range. I don´t see how complicated the solution I´m proposing is.

Edited Friday at 04:59 by Obskiuras

[Classic-Burger]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

My only problem with "sticky" formations is that the enemy is often not using formations and now you have 20 guys in your formation focus-stabbing 1 of the enemy's guys at a time. Formations like desired are much better if all soldiers on both sides are in formations as well. so you have formation vs. formation. 

There is a need to normalize the formations.

[Atrik]

There is still at least 2 different bug with formations that I haven't been able to have clear way to reproduce yet too.
1. is units acquiring random targets when pressing Halt in formation, ex: a building even if clearly there are units nearby, or attack units far away. (happens when there are a lot of entity around so i guess it's because of some optimization stuff)
2. units sometimes freeze/dance salsa endlessly in formation.

Else wise, formation are already very very useful without bonus already, for unit placement, and to fight efficiently. I know some will consider bug too but it's actually nice that units can cluster up while in formation. 

[Classic-Burger]

Some formations should give an advantage to the defense and others to the offense.

Testudo vs missile firing.

Phalanx similar but less protection and some attack 2% more maybe 

Close formations should have bonuses against falling arrows and other projectiles.

Syntagma and Anticav would be bonus to the attack against cavalry.

Closed formations should penalize movement and open formations should favor it.

The Persians were to have a unique formation, which would serve as a shield and barrier to the enemy of archers.( Protect the archers) It would be a composite formation.

https://archeryhistorian.com/persian-archery/#:~:text=Persian Archery %26 Battle Tactics&text=They would release arrows%2C and,units would form their lines.

 

[Deicide4u]

The most common and the most infuriating bug with formations, that I've experienced, is unit freeze. 

To reproduce:

1) Make sure "No override" is selected for formation control 

2) Order your units into a line formation, 

3) March towards the enemy base, 

4) Add some more units to the group from your base, 

5) Attack move the enemy base. 

Half the time, most of your units will just sit there frozen, while a few march in to be slaughtered by the enemy.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

btw -- I am pro-formation, but there are a lot of hurdles. Not just technical hurdles, but in their function and use and how they interact with non-formed enemy units. Ideally, the units in your formation should spread their attacks out along multiple targets within range. And then also do the same when facing another formation in combat. We'd have to eliminate, as much as possible, the focus-fire effect. 

Truly, if I had my way, we'd have all soldiers in constant battalions, Battle for Middle Earth style ("squad-based combat" would be the industry term).

 

[Obskiuras]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

btw -- I am pro-formation, but there are a lot of hurdles. Not just technical hurdles, but in their function and use and how they interact with non-formed enemy units. Ideally, the units in your formation should spread their attacks out along multiple targets within range. And then also do the same when facing another formation in combat. We'd have to eliminate, as much as possible, the focus-fire effect. 

Truly, if I had my way, we'd have all soldiers in constant battalions, Battle for Middle Earth style ("squad-based combat" would be the industry term).

 

I´ve always liked Battle for Middle Earth style! But that game had a problem, when you choose several squads they move mixed.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 minutes ago, Obskiuras said:

I´ve always liked Battle for Middle Earth style! But that game had a problem, when you choose several squads they move mixed.

Right, I'd really like to see "column" movement implemented. Basically, battalions would form one by one into the column and they'd all "snake" together to the destination. Or else, if it's a short distance, they'd stay together side by side in a battle line. 

[Obskiuras]

36 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Right, I'd really like to see "column" movement implemented. Basically, battalions would form one by one into the column and they'd all "snake" together to the destination. Or else, if it's a short distance, they'd stay together side by side in a battle line. 

That´s what I thought!

[Obskiuras]

More examples of shield walls: