Formations

[Mythos_Ruler]

Line (Closed)

Attack: No change

Armour: No change

Speed: No change

Behavior: "Default" formation when moving and fighting over short distances. No specific strengths or weakness. Wheels and changes direction with ease.

Column (Closed)

Attack: No change (units will not attack)

Armour: -15%

Speed: +15%

Behavior: "Default" formation for moving over long distances (longer than the width of the screen).

Line (Open)

Attack: No change

Armour: +10% Pierce. +20% Crush.

Speed: -15%

Behavior: A wider-spaced version of the Line formation. This helps reduce the effectiveness of splash damage and missiles.

Column (Open)

Attack: No change (units will not attack)

Armour: -10%

Speed: +10%

Behavior: A wider-spaced version of the Column formation. This helps reduce the effectiveness of splash damage and missiles.

Scatter

Attack: No change

Armour: No change

Speed: No change

Behavior: "Default" formation for support units (unless they are formed with soldiers, then they default to Line with them). No specific strengths or weakness.

Box

Attack: No change

Armour: +25%

Speed: -10%

Behavior: A defensive formation. Weaker units are placed toward the middle, while stronger units are formed along the outside. This formation defaults to 'Stand Ground' stance.

Wedge

Attack: +25% charge

Armour: -10%

Speed: +10%

Behavior: A cavalry formation. Very good for cavalry charges, however the formation is guaranteed to lose 1 unit or 5% (whichever is greater) of the attacking force upon impact for each charge performed with this formation.

Flank

Attack: +10%

Armour: No change

Speed: No change

Behavior: Useful when attacking a single enemy formation -- it gives a single group of the player's units the ability to flank a single group of enemy soldiers. Also good for scouting.

Skirmish

Attack: No change (minimum range doubled)

Armour: No change

Speed: No change

Behavior: A formation for ranged units. Units will fire a volley (or two), retreat just out of vision range of their targets, come back into range, then fire again. This is repeated. The minimum range of units in this formation is also doubled, so they are more likely to run away when enemy units begin to pursue.

Phalanx

Attack: +25%

Armour: +25%

Speed: -25%

Behavior: A close-order overlapping shields formation for Greek hoplitai-style infantry. Available to the Greek Poleis sub-faction. Slow to turn to face new threats, but is wider than and not as deep as the Syntagma (below), so is not as easy to flank.

Syntagma

Attack: +10%

Armour: +40%

Speed: -25%

Behavior: A large, deep, square formation for pike infantry. Available to the Greek Macedonia sub-faction. It is slow and is slow to turn to face new threats. Flanks should be protected.

Testudo

Attack: -25%

Armour: +100%

Speed: -50%

Behavior: A defensive shield formation. Moves very slowly. Defaults to 'Stand Ground' stance. Good for moving Roman troops under heavy fire (usually in siege situations), but useless in open battle though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page here also shows some good information (but some things could be clarified, expanded, and tweaked).

http://www.wildfiregames.com/~gamedesign/dd/formation2.htm

[Wijitmaker]

Great info and links here as well: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/13

[k776]

Excellent work. Now we just need someone to implement this for A3 :-)

[feneur]

Would it be ok for me(/you if you like) to add this to the DD? As well as the info on stances?

[Kimball]

Since some of these formations require a certain number of units to be selected before they are available to the player, we'll need a third set of icons that are even more grayed-out. A tooltip that informs the player how many more units (and of what type, in some cases) are required for that formation would be helpful.

Also, since the testudo formation is only available to the Romans, we should hide the icon unless the player chooses them.

[Mythos_Ruler]

This kind of complexity is why I wish we used a battalion system. Implementing this is going to be complex. Should be fun.

[Kimball]

It'll certainly be challenging for the programmers who get it done, but in my opinion it'll be more rewarding and ultimately more fun. Our engine is constructed around the ability to micromanage individual units - not large scale armies like in RTW. We'll leave that niche to them.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It'll certainly be challenging for the programmers who get it done, but in my opinion it'll be more rewarding and ultimately more fun. Our engine is constructed around the ability to micromanage individual units - not large scale armies like in RTW. We'll leave that niche to them.

Kind of a frustrating attitude. Perhaps we should leave the "conquer the world" map niche to them too? RTW isn't the only game to use a battalion system.

Anyway, it's going to get complicated, but that's okay. Hopefully we can present it in an intuitive manner.

I don't think we need a 3rd set of icons. I think a formation button could just not be there if it is unavailable. Either that, or it uses the gray button and when hovered over the cursor turns to a no-smoking symbol and/or the button doesn't lighten up like normal.

[Kimball]

A third set of icons would indicate to the player that the formation would be available if certain criteria are met (units added to group). In some cases, a certain formation would give the player an advantageous edge, so it may be useful to him to know what is available to his faction. And they also wouldn't be very difficult to make.. the tooltips would likely be the most complicated aspect of the idea.

[k776]

I don't see why any of these would need a certain number of units selected to work.

Maybe they won't be effective without more units, but the formation should still be able to be triggered.

[Kimball]

Though I recognize that this page is a bit outdated, http://www.wildfiregames.com/~gamedesign/dd/formation2.htm describes a minimum number of units required for some of the formations.

[Sighvatr]

An old thread for a new post, but I want to say that I hope formations will be powerful enough to be relied on. Infantry units are not very useful in-game currently then if I were to use fast and ranged units. It would be fair to the infantry player if infantry formation bonuses would be very powerful. A Tetsudo should be immune to ranged fire, because if the units performing Tetsudo gets hurt from ranged fire, then there is no point to the formation.

[FeXoR]

Giving formations a very high bonus feels like enforcing they make sense. I don't know if they can be implemented well and will grand a significant gameplay value. It would be really nice if we had a "no formation" formation so that the order is just given to each unit separately. That way "balancing" the different formations would be easier and we could see how big the bonuses for formations would need to be.

Edited October 22, 2012 by FeXoR

[Pedro Falcão]

I'm curious. How the game knows what unit should be in the box and what should be outside? Is there an attribute like "priority" or each unit?

Giving formations a very high bonus feels like enforcing they make sense. I don't know if they can be implemented well and will grand a significant gameplay value. It would be really nice if we had a "no formation" formation so that the order is just given to each unit separately. That way "balancing" the different formations would be easier and we could see how big the bonuses for formations would need to be.

Yeah, it would make more sense to make formations only available after researching some kind of technology.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Well, particular ones are to be available that way.

[Sighvatr]

@Pedro- I actually suggested that the formations should be a possible technology too. I agree with you.

@FeXor- Don't think that I'm suggesting that infantry are going to render missile troops useless if my earlier post becomes true in 0 A.D.

There can be ways to put down formations such as Tetsudo, by disrupting their formation with melee troops, then attack with your ranged units. This way combat in-game would feel more strategic than simply charging in with your units. Depending on how well somebody can implement formations in-game depends on the creator.

[Pedro Falcão]

Well, particular ones are to be available that way.

But i mean formations are a plus to be used as the player wants. It's not a thing inherent to every unit, much less just(-and-poorly)-trained citizen soldiers that once were farmers. Out of that reality argument used in every topic, in my point of view this makes new players more likely to use the formations because it'll become more obvious how they'll influence the game. To understand better, imagine the situation: You're a new player that is trying the first RTS game in your life. You have an army that is in constant battle with the enemy. The enemy researches formations and starts cleverly using those formations against specific batches of your army, in a way that is hurting very bad what once worked. You'll then feel compelled to research the same tech and use them wisely just like your enemy was using.

[Zeta1127]

I have also been wondering if the Cantabrian circle would be a good idea if the Iberians were to get a horse archer, ever since I discovered it on Wikipedia.

I also think Sparabara formation would be a great addition to the Persians.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Zeta1127

[Zeta1127]

Its actually on this website, in the third paragraph of the Shake Up in the East section of the fourth team diary. Sparabara formation is a type of shield wall formation used by the Median Spearman (Mada Sparabara) to protect archers.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Zeta1127

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Perhaps I am incorrect, but as far as I see, the only known culture to actually use the box formation was the Roman civilization. Why is it available to every other one? I frankly cannot verify this statement, yet it might be a matter worth discussing.

[FeXoR]

I'm still desperate of a "non formation" formation that just givers the order to every unit separately.

[Pedro Falcão]

I'm still desperate of a "non formation" formation that just givers the order to every unit separately.

...And is default until a tech is researched.

[FeXoR]

...And is default until a tech is researched.

...as long as I don't need to chose a "real" formation after the tech is researched it's OK for me.

[Burzum]

Does the box formation have the heroes and centurions in the center? Also archer would also need to be centered.

I'm still desperate of a "non formation" formation that just givers the order to every unit separately.

I like this.

Especially if the the civ you are playing is barbarian like Gauls and Iberians. They did not fight in formation.

Formations could also be unique to the civs as well. Considering Testudo and the like to be only a Roman thing and so on.

But I like these. I haven't seen a testudo in an RTS before!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Burzum

[Sighvatr]

This game will be beast if formations serve a useful purpose. Gotta wait till somebody that knows how to put together such a feature would come along.