What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

Battalions

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

Battalions

It sounds ambitious, it would be interesting...it would be less frenetic and more deliberate. Like a less developed Total War.

I agree that the game should take the risk of ceasing to be an AoE clone.While still being an RTS.

Real Time Tactical. 

There have never been many games that combine base building and tactical battles.

In fact, almost none.

Manor Lords...But it's a city building with RTT.

Edited 13 hours ago by Classic-Burger

[Radiotraining]

As casual player, I have to say that the game doesn't *necessarily* lack anything: visuals are really beautiful and keep improving each release and overall is a solid, reliable game that I like exactly because it stay true to the pure rts formula. Which is rare nowadays. 

But at the same time, if we are to improve something, I would also agree that the game tend to stale in the lategame part, because of lack of "extra" techs or elements that keeps playing engaging after reaching the final stage. 

I think Burrito is really onto something when he mentiones "dopamine effect" that comes with feeling of accomplishment. Probably this is an element that can elevate the game feel overall.

What AOE did really well, was marking each phase with great visual improvements. You really have a sense of accomplishment after each stage, especially in how buildings looked. Something missing a little in 0ad. 

But this is all easier said than done: making new skin/buildings for each stage requires a massive effort from art department, extra disc space in the final download and lot of time to develop. However is an element to consider. 

With units would be the same, but I think even small cues, such as naming a more experienced soldier into "élite" or whatever synonym, could add this sense of improvement, like going from basic Hastati 》 Royal Hastati 》 Élite Hastati or something like that, to mark a difference between each improvement, could add to the experience of progression. Just a simple idea. 

I used to play a game as kid, Imperium by Haemimont Games. There was also unit experience there and a visual cue was their shield and armours would turn more and more gold the higher up they went. Maybe a simple visual element like that could also work without re-making every single unit? Just another simple idea. 

All of these are not "necessary" changes, but tweaking on this idea of progression can improve the game experience to the late stage. 

 

2 hours ago, Classic-Burger said:

There have never been many games that combine base building and tactical battles.

About battalions. While they may be interesting, I'm not sure is the only way to go. 

I really like the current concept of "soft battalions" that form naturally if you click a group of units, while keeping each unit singular. Maybe the same concept can be "hardened" with a specific button to merge a group of units into a battalion and eventually disband them. 

But the reason I'm not completely a fan is because I used to play also another game that combined this with rts: Praetorians. And the whole battalion thing, while being cool to play, it also bored me quite quickly, because it lacked another concept that is "human immersion". Big group of units quickly feel like mere cannon fodder and there's something a little special about starting with few units, or make them survive from an enemy or make them "grow" etc.. is a feeling of classic rts that may be worth keeping, while adding other improvements.

I hope I could give some constructive opinions. As I said, is only a perception from a casual player. The game is already fun and cool to play

[Classic-Burger]

7 hours ago, Radiotraining said:

But the reason I'm not completely a fan is because I used to play also another game that combined this with rts: Praetorians. And the whole battalion thing, while being cool to play, it also bored me quite quickly, because it lacked another concept that is "human immersion". Big group of units quickly feel like mere cannon fodder and there's something a little special about starting with few units, or make them survive from an enemy or make them "grow" etc.. is a feeling of classic rts that may be worth keeping, while adding other improvements.

It would work differently than Praetorians.

[Atrik]

11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

Battalions

Would be op. I would rly much would like to give a try to introduce this, along with other formation improvements like 'flexible' formations. 

If this PR get in (kindof a prerequisite), one of the two above would be the next thing I'll try to do.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

28 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

It would work differently than Praetorians.

Yes. I'm talking about battalions between. 15 and 30 units (max).

@Radiotraining:

And then you get that personal "immersion" or "attachment" in how you can upgrade each battalion individually and make them unique. Add an officer, a noise maker, upgrade their armor and weapons, etc. Maybe even have a meta where there's a screen outside the match where you can customize battalions and they show up in-game available to train in the UI. 

[Classic-Burger]

Let's see...

Battalions need to be flexible.

The battalion could be disbanded. That would be an advanced feature.

The difference between formation and battalion would be a cohesion bonus. The formation would be that a battalion is formed by a single unit type.

For cohesion to work, there should be no more differences than experience.Champions and mercenaries cannot belong to the same battalion.Except for certain factions.

There should be an AI battalion AI like there is an AI for units.

As you can see, it's not something easy to implement.

It should be optional in the rules of the game.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

Let's see...

Battalions need to be flexible.

The battalion could be disbanded. That would be an advanced feature.

The difference between formation and battalion would be a cohesion bonus. The formation would be that a battalion is formed by a single unit type.

For cohesion to work, there should be no more differences than experience.Champions and mercenaries cannot belong to the same battalion.Except for certain factions.

There should be an AI battalion AI like there is an AI for units.

As you can see, it's not something easy to implement.

It should be optional in the rules of the game.

Mmm. We debated this stuff years ago. I'd rather battalions be permanent. Why? Because of the APM loss from the management required to band and disband the battalions. Battalions are supposed to free up APM to allow for deeper, yet higher level, tactical things like formation bonuses, flanking attacks, charging, etc. 

[Classic-Burger]

2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

battalions be permanent

That would be a completely different game mode. You'd have to create entire battalions. Like in Battle for the middle earth. It would also resemble praetorians in that sense.

 

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Battalions are supposed to free up APM to allow for deeper, yet higher level, tactical things like formation bonuses, flanking attacks, charging, etc. 

That's understandable.

You would also need an AI that emulates the movement of an RTT. And that the formations maintain and fight in formation(single formation).

 

 

[Outis]

14 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 formation bonuses, flanking attacks, charging, etc. 

I wish we had these before the discussion reg battalions so it can be decided based on how they work...

[Deicide4u]

43 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe even have a meta where there's a screen outside the match where you can customize battalions and they show up in-game available to train in the UI. 

This would be very cool to have for the (eventual) campaign. A separate screen where you get to customize your elite troops from a battalion and choose several for a mission.

Obviously, the inspiration would be how Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War did these (called squads in that game).

35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Battalions are supposed to free up APM to allow for deeper, yet higher level, tactical things like formation bonuses, flanking attacks, charging, etc. 

We have a primitive version of that with the "Battalion formations" checkbox. The issue with that option (and why it's always ticked off in my game) is that you can't easily micro-manage the troops in a formation. You have some that are heavily wounded and you want to send them into a Temple? Well, you first need to disband the formation, otherwise all of your units are selected by default.

In principle, I agree. If we double-down on spam economics where all you have to do is make more units that are at the same time your workers, then there is an advantage to forcing them into battalions. However, if we want to scale back on the spamming, the battalions are useless.

So, in essence, it depends on what the main vision for the game is. What meta are we striving to?

Also, because we have CS ranks, we'd need to figure out how experience gain affects the battalions. Is it individual, or will units in a battalion share experience and rank up at the same time?

Edited 1 hour ago by Deicide4u
Added the experience gain bit

[Classic-Burger]

RTT's use small squads (4-10 units) instead of massive armies (hundreds in RTS). This makes pathfinding much more manageable, since the AI can calculate individual paths without overhead.

The player orders the entire squad; the internal AI assigns roles (leader, flanks) and positions, preventing the player from micromanaging each soldier.

 

 

—According the AI.

I more or less suspected this.

 

Explicit formations and position assignment

Manual formation selection: Before moving, you choose types like Line (horizontal, ideal for trenches), Wedge (V for flanking), Column (for roads), Cover (compact but spaced), or Assault (adaptable). Each defines relative spaced offsets, distributing units automatically.

"Spots" reservations: Upon arrival at the destination, each unit reserves its offset position (with random drift for organic variability), preventing overlaps.

Squad leader: Calculates the main path (A* on a grid with clearance-based for variable sizes: infantry 1x1, tanks large). Predicts its future position (~2s ahead).

Relative offsets: Other members calculate short/cheap paths (limited A* 50-100 nodes, every 0.5-0.75s) from their current position to an offset of the predicted leader. It compresses organically around obstacles (e.g., skirting rocks without much deviation).

Clearance-based: Precomputes distances to obstacles; filters invalid paths by size (e.g., tank won't enter clearance <3), avoiding jams.

Edited 1 hour ago by Classic-Burger

[Classic-Burger]

 

The problem with Praetorians is that it gets chaotic in combat; it's very arcade-like.