Stances

[ribez]

I think the stance icons should always be shown, if possible. Either lined up next to the unit portrait or grouped with the formation panel (there's empty space there, too).

i agree with you

[historic_bruno]

On second thought, it can't go next to the unit portrait because when you have groups of many units selected that space can fill up (the individual unit info disappears as well, so we'd have to change that).

[chaosislife]

Any chance of getting stances for siege units, in particular telling them to stand still?

[Pedro Falcão]

About the passive instance, i can say that in Age of Empires it was used by catapults and bombard cannons: when they attack, they can injury your own troops, so putting them in a state of no attack is essencial to save troops. If in 0A.D. the catapults cannot injury friendly troops, then i have to agree that no-attacking is useless, but if they do, then we got to find a solution for this, uh?

[Mythos_Ruler]

About the passive instance, i can say that in Age of Empires it was used by catapults and bombard cannons: when they attack, they can injury your own troops, so putting them in a state of no attack is essencial to save troops. If in 0A.D. the catapults cannot injury friendly troops, then i have to agree that no-attacking is useless, but if they do, then we got to find a solution for this, uh?

If we include splash damage/friendly fire, then they would act as siege onagers acted in AOK:The Conquerors -- they would not auto-fire when friendly troops are in the way (they would fire if tasked to do so, though). No need for "passive stance" to be manually selected in this case.

[chaosislife]

I'm mostly thinking about the ability to post siege weapons in defensive positions during battle so I don't have to have dedicated towers out in a place where they'll be unnecessary after awhile. Tho I think it could also be a good idea for rams since they'd be the only part of an army I couldn't tell to stand still while waiting to "strike at dawn" or something so the rams could very easily go haring off across the map after a woman or a decoy unit. This would screw up my plans an awful lot, especially since they'd likely follow said unit directly back to the enemy camp and get themselves destroyed.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I'm mostly thinking about the ability to post siege weapons in defensive positions during battle so I don't have to have dedicated towers out in a place where they'll be unnecessary after awhile. Tho I think it could also be a good idea for rams since they'd be the only part of an army I couldn't tell to stand still while waiting to "strike at dawn" or something so the rams could very easily go haring off across the map after a woman or a decoy unit. This would screw up my plans an awful lot, especially since they'd likely follow said unit directly back to the enemy camp and get themselves destroyed.

In that case you'd probably use "Stand Ground." You would want them to fight back if discovered and attacked, right?

[chaosislife]

In that case you'd probably use "Stand Ground." You would want them to fight back if discovered and attacked, right?

Yes, if there was a way to set their stances (normally) that is. There is a way to do it if they're part of a group but this assumes that every unit in the group should operate under the same stance, which might not be the best idea. Some units might work best on violent while others be on stand ground. It also assumes that there would be other units in the group running next to the rams. I might like to send my rams from one side and my infantry from another. Or what I've been doing which is just to send a group made up of a couple helepoli and five rams to slaughter the enemy's army and then crush their base. I really need to play against actual people instead of torturing jubot.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yes, if there was a way to set their stances (normally) that is. There is a way to do it if they're part of a group but this assumes that every unit in the group should operate under the same stance, which might not be the best idea. Some units might work best on violent while others be on stand ground. It also assumes that there would be other units in the group running next to the rams. I might like to send my rams from one side and my infantry from another. Or what I've been doing which is just to send a group made up of a couple helepoli and five rams to slaughter the enemy's army and then crush their base. I really need to play against actual people instead of torturing jubot.

I think it would be cool to be able to set the 'default' stances of different types of units even before a match. You could even save these under different presets. Call them "Play Styles" and bundle them with other pre-configurable things too, like hotkey sets, etc.

[asmartgoat]

What about patrol, like in AOM.

Basically you hit patrol, then a point on the map and they walk to and from this point, attacking any enemies on the way.

Just a suggestion

[Mythos_Ruler]

What about patrol, like in AOM.

Basically you hit patrol, then a point on the map and they walk to and from this point, attacking any enemies on the way.

Just a suggestion

I think that would be a button beneath the unit portrait. There's also a little icon already committed for it.

[Pedro Falcão]

I remember of using a stance to divide equally a group in two. The tooltip of the stance said it was to surround enemies, attacking at the flanks, but i used it to divide the army as well, half guarding the city, half attacking the enemy. Any plans of this in 0A.D.?

[historic_bruno]

I remember of using a stance to divide equally a group in two. The tooltip of the stance said it was to surround enemies, attacking at the flanks, but i used it to divide the army as well, half guarding the city, half attacking the enemy. Any plans of this in 0A.D.?

That sounds like the flank formation, we do have that

[JuliusColtranePille]

it would be a really big gameplay-enhancement if stances, positions on the battlefield, being attacked from behind/flank/front, losing or keeping an essential stance/formation (keeping the phalanx or losing it)

count a lot during a battle. since this played a major role in ancient warfare it would depict ancient battles and tactics realistically.

i guess the engine behind that would cause a lot of work and eventually it would possibly make the gameplay more difficult but thus also more intriguing.

in how far are things mentioned above planned to be implemented?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

For the most part, yes. The only thing of the above never mentioned would be the breaking of formation on heavy impact, but it is extremely likely to be implemented I think.

[Pedro Falcão]

For the most part, yes. The only thing of the above never mentioned would be the breaking of formation on heavy impact, but it is extremely likely to be implemented I think.

Let's imagine it: You're a spearman on the frontline, druing a battle. There are horsemen coming, you have to stand firmly against the impact that, you know for sure, will be heavy. The horsemen come, some horses refuse to throw themselves into the spears, some die, some trample the spearmen. This is formation breaking by trampling.

But, just to be sure you guys remember, there were also formation breaking by low morale (some soldiers simply flee in fear of dying) that played important roles in the outcome of some roman battles, for a sample.

There is, also, the 'surprise element', ambushes may scatter the units.

Surrounding and attacking by behind contribute for some casualties, so the side the formation is facing is also important. I know it's not a thing to think about now, it's just too early, but, as a programmer, i know things need to be thought of before starting to implement. And even if it won't be implemented in 0 AD, who knows the future? Maybe in 1 AD...

[historic_bruno]

So I have a patch to fix units ignoring player orders when attacked, which is directly related to stances. It may not be clear what the desired behavior is in all possible cases or even what cases exist, so I've made a table to clarify.

I think it's important to make sure every case is correct (if there's any consensus on what "correct" is), otherwise units do things players don't expect, which is annoying.

Unit will respond to attacks when...
                                 Stance is:   violent    other
Order is:
------------------------------
walk to point                                    Y         N
walk to target                                   Y         N       in response to a player order
leave foundation                                 Y?        N
attack (player ordered)                          Y         N
attack (gathering animal)                        Y         Y*      because this is part of a "gathering" order?
attack (auto / LOS)                              Y         Y
garrison                                         Y         N
ungarrison*                                      -         -       garrisoned units can't be attacked (in theory)
gather                                           Y         Y
gather near position*                            Y         Y       used for rally points
heal (player ordered)                            ?         ?
heal (auto / LOS)                                ?         ?       healers can really only respond by fleeing; "violent" stance makes no sense
return resource (player order)                   Y         N
return resource (auto)*                          Y         Y       shuttling
trade                                            Y         Y
repair/build*                                    Y         Y       repair and build are the same order
flee*                                            Y         Y       used by healers when attacked
cheer (promotion)*                               -         -       unit is temporarily invincible during promotion

I personally would rather aim for consistency, all player orders are forced and can't be interrupted by attacks, unless the stance allows it (violent). But the above list comes from some IRC discussion with Mythos_Ruler and my own guesses.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I hashed out some thoughts with Pureon the other day about stances. We feel like the stances available for the player to select should be winnowed down from 5 to 3.

Violent

• Remove. Not enough difference between Violent and Aggressive for most players to notice or care.

Aggressive

• Keep.

Idle

• Remove. This would only be used with the behavior of certain (mostly animal) units, and not be an option to manually select.

Defensive

• Keep.

Stand Ground

• Keep. In most cases where a player would use "Idle" they probably meant to select or should have selected Stand Ground. You generally want your idle units to fight back if they are attacked by an enemy melee unit, rather than just standing there, even if you want them to not move from their position.

So, as far as "selectable" stances there should only be 3 (I think we should cull the formation options as well, but that's a different thread). So, that's it for selectable stances. I think there should be other stances or behaviors as well, that are inherent to different commands or specific to various units. Including:
Avoid

• Support Units and most Animals. When they are attacked they run away.
• Scout Command. Cavalry units given the scout command default to this behavior unless overridden by the player.

Impetuous or Violent

• The default (and only) stance for berserker units, like Thracian mercenaries and others. Attacks anything and everything in sight. Doesn't respond to player input if it's attacked (kind of like how units respond now).

and maybe others I can't think of right now.

[FeXoR]

I think stances should only effect behavior of units without any player given order. Maybe there could be stances explicitly overriding commands like 'violent' (attack) might as historic_bruno said in the list and an opposite stance 'evasive' (run away). Arguments for and against that can be found in this topic. Then the question arises 'What is a 'player given order'?'. IMO any order not given by the unit AI itself after a unit was idle after fulfilling a player given command. There is a gray area between player given and unit AI given orders however like: Gather/return resources and some future commands 'auto explore' and 'attack move'. But I think they still are player given and the unit AI only helps him to accomplish them. In case of wild animals I agree though elephants will most likely just kill gatherers or even citizen soldiers.

Making a single unit attack or run away will have no big game impact anyways: A single unit attacking a bunch of enemies will most likely die without dealing much damage. A unit running away for a few seconds and then return to it's duty will most likely be attacked again - and die a bit later. If they would just for example gather further or premature return resources if attacked they have better chances to survive or draw the enemy into better defended parts of the own base and so help killing them while still gathering resources. If the aim of stances is to make citizens stay alive a 'return resources if attacked' or 'auto garrison into a building with an attack if attacked' behavior would do better IMO.

For a bunch of attack units standing idle gathering somewhere to attack or as a defense force however it's a different thing. Stances could be useful here. Then the question arises: 'What exactly should stances effect?'. IMO it should only be the distance they walk away trying to attack or evade the enemy from the point of order of the last given player command (or where they where when the player command became invalid like attack a unit that dies while moving towards it. In this case it might be good to let the unit walk to the point of death of that unit to make it gather with other units with the same command). In this case evasive behavior is quite useless because maybe the units will die slower but still won't do any damage to the enemy. BTW: The units should first check if they can get into attack range following the stances restrictions before starting to move.

My opinion in short:

- Stances should only effect 'idle' units (don't interact with player commands)

- Defensive stance is only useful for units without an attack and so may as well be the default and only behavior of those units (if idle). When gathering/scouting/garrisoning they should still do that and only that (while defending against wild animals might be a part of gathering in the wild)

- For units with attacks an aggressive stance is the only useful so it may as well be the default and only behavior (if idle).

- To act more aggressive the 'attack move' order can be used.

In the end there is no real need for stances IMO.

I didn't mention the problems arising when having attack priorities, formations, minimum range and attack restrictions in addition to stances here because it seams a topic mostly focusing on stances.

This all might be considered before reducing the number of available stances like planed by Mythos_Ruler.

Since I'm obviously not a friend of stances perhaps someone more delighted about the idea could explain what stances should achieve in detail. 

Edited May 1, 2012 by FeXoR

[FeXoR]

Dont forget about Stop Command button(Cancel order). is necessary.

Agreed though a cancel order is only useful for player given commands since the unit AI will start right away with it's previous behavior afterwards anyways. But its good to give full control to the unit AI/stances as well. 

Edited May 1, 2012 by FeXoR

[FeXoR]

Empire Earth 2 have a button/command Search and Destroy, you cant hunt the only one last standing enemy unit in the dark of Map, that unit cannot move and is in a "border". of the land, if you press this button your unit explore the map seaching enemy units.

Think about this the Ai player have only left unit but you don't see for many reason especially if you don't reveal map.

Yes, this is useful as said in this other topic. I thought this topic however does focus on stances.

[FeXoR]

The Rams needs to have Behaviour/Stances because if they need to repair don't follow my order to retreat a safe place.

This would be fixed by preferring player given orders over anything else as well. So I don't see the need for stances here neither.  

Edited May 1, 2012 by FeXoR

[historic_bruno]

In the end there is no real need for stances IMO.

Sure there is. Stances, if they work correctly, let you set up groups of units with specific behaviors and then leave them alone for a while. It eliminates micromanaging hundreds of units on multiple fronts which would get annoying very quickly. It's not always attack or idle. Sometimes units are intended for patrol/watch and you don't want them going all over the map on a wild chase. You might say we should have a patrol command then, but sometimes it's even more nuanced, there may be a dangerous area of the map, and you want units to defend themselves in a restricted space but not chase enemies into the dangerous area (e.g. not fall into a trap). Sometimes you don't want units to move at all, but still defend themselves as much as possible, which is what the stand ground stance is for. Another thing I use stand ground for is defending narrow passages, when there's no walls or gates - it prevents enemy units from coming through. It's also good for allowing a retreat of weaker units in a rout. Good management of stances is essential in my experience, but it may just be my style of play.

Stances are more useful than formations IMO, and we need them, but we need their behavior to be consistent and sensible too.

[FeXoR]

Assuming here we only speak of attack units:

Sure there is. Stances, if they work correctly, let you set up groups of units with specific behaviors and then leave them alone for a while. It eliminates micromanaging hundreds of units on multiple fronts which would get annoying very quickly.

I setup some control groups for attack units so I only have to manage about 3 attack groups which reduces the amount of attention needed for them... as far as they follow my orders and don't run everywhere. So they should be able to move a bit (lets say 1.5 to 2 * max attack range of any unit so that melee cavalry has a chance to chase down ranged units) and attack if enemies are close but otherwise approximately hold the position. Don't know which stance that is...

It's not always attack or idle. Sometimes units are intended for patrol/watch and you don't want them going all over the map on a wild chase.

I never want them to do that automatically. If I want them to attack I'd use attack move if available.

You might say we should have a patrol command then, but sometimes it's even more nuanced, there may be a dangerous area of the map, and you want units to defend themselves in a restricted space but not chase enemies into the dangerous area (e.g. not fall into a trap).

That is indeed a good point for stances. However, I'd try to build defensive structures in such a case and gather my units behind. An patrol order is IMO not that much needed but helpful and stances doesn't cover it as well IMO. Just to make sure we get each other right: I assume patrol (as attack move/auto explore/search and destroy/gather) is an player given order with vast help of the unit AI. In that cases effecting them by stances might seam useful in theory but as far as I thought about how that should be in detail (with the help of some others like e.g. feneur) in most cases it turns out it isn't. So the units with a patrol order should IMO act like said before as well (be free to move and attack but approximately hold the 'position' - in case of patrol don't run away to far from the 'patrol line')

Sometimes you don't want units to move at all, but still defend themselves as much as possible, which is what the stand ground stance is for. Another thing I use stand ground for is defending narrow passages, when there's no walls or gates - it prevents enemy units from coming through. It's also good for allowing a retreat of weaker units in a rout.

That way ranged units will rip your units away without much danger to themselves.

Good management of stances is essential in my experience, but it may just be my style of play.

Same in my case. I don't have any problem with stances to be implemented as far as they don't disturb my style of play. But 'as is' they mainly reduce my influence on the units (mainly because of the missing priority system and the stances implemented 'prematurely').

Stances are more useful than formations IMO, and we need them, but we need their behavior to be consistent and sensible too.

I agree that stances are more useful then formations. But AFAIK formations are planned to 'cheat' by disabling enemies to use focused fire (kill one unit after the other) and make them 'attack as one' (whatever that means?). My hairs raise thinking of such things... Perhaps open a discussion about formations as well and let the PPL explain their thoughts and ideas?

I'm not entirely sure I get you right. Are you agreeing that stances shouldn't interact with player given commands? If so I'm fine because it doesn't interacts with my style of play

I'm open to discussions about stance usage for commands making vast use of the unit AI like attack move/gather/auto explore/search and destroy/patrol (if those are implemented) but as far as I see this is only helpful in edge cases and mainly makes the player to click more (the stance buttons) so I'm not thrilled with that idea either.

Edited May 2, 2012 by FeXoR

[Pedro Falcão]

please, remember to let the player set the default stance for new units at the options menu, it's very useful.