Missile role

[LienRag]

Since 0ad is a historically-themed (if not historically realist) game, the way missile work as of now (being the main weapon) is really bad and harming the gameplay a lot.

What are the solutions ?

What is the role that we want for missiles and how to do it right ?

[Outis]

1 hour ago, LienRag said:

What is the role that we want for missiles and how to do it right ?

The historical reason for missiles not dominating is friendly-fire. One should not be able or willing to fire missile in a melee due to fear of hitting own units. Missiles should be for skirmishing and harassing.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Changing unit speeds and giving units more specialized roles. This is made quite difficult by citizen soldiers, and by unit availability by civ, but i believe it is possible. 

[LienRag]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Changing unit speeds and giving units more specialized roles. This is made quite difficult by citizen soldiers, and by unit availability by civ, but i believe it is possible. 

????

I don't understand what you mean ?

[LienRag]

2 hours ago, Outis said:

The historical reason for missiles not dominating is friendly-fire. One should not be able or willing to fire missile in a melee due to fear of hitting own units. Missiles should be for skirmishing and harassing.

I heartily agree with the last part, but note that using bows to shoot over one's own soldiers is AFAIK a historically attested practice.

So not something we should forbid.

And I mean, shooting over one's own melee soldiers was probably done to shoot on the soldiers engaging in melee with such melee soldiers...

[Outis]

3 hours ago, LienRag said:

shooting over one's own melee soldiers

I have no problem reg shooting over units. When i say melee, i dont mean in game jargon like any hand to hand combat. I mean when the hand to hand combat matures, there is no more clear battle lines, and units from the different sides are disorganized.

 

3 hours ago, LienRag said:

So not something we should forbid

We should definitely not forbid, but make it costly and a tactical decision: is it critical enough for me to destroy the target quickly so that i accept losses due to friendly fire.

Edited Wednesday at 20:51 by Outis

[Perzival12]

The best solution, in my opinion, is to enable friendly fire for ALL missiles, just like real life. Then, if you want to have a squad of archers, you actually have to think: Is it worth the risk of my soldiers getting hit by arrows? Is it better to put my archers to the side, and have them shoot at reinforcements? Or should I train a whole bunch of guys that are resistant to pierce, and have my archers fire into the melee? These would make the game much more exciting, and also more realistic.

[LienRag]

Indeed, but we also would need better control of our troops.

Putting your archers to the side to shoot at reinforcements and then having them friendly firing at your troops because the AI decided it wanted to shoot at the melee would be very frustrating.

[LienRag]

On 29/10/2025 at 8:48 PM, Outis said:

I have no problem reg shooting over units. When i say melee, i dont mean in game jargon like any hand to hand combat. I mean when the hand to hand combat matures, there is no more clear battle lines, and units from the different sides are disorganized.

From what Brett Devereaux writes, this doesn't happen historically (except in very rare occasions); that's a modern misconception.

Anyway archers should in some situations be able to shoot over their melee comrades, probably not (or with the risk of friendly fire) on the first rank of enemy soldiers engaged in melee, but on the rear ranks. And of course also on the first rank while they charge and are not already engaged in melee.

 

Also if we want to have ancient battles and not napoleonian ones with swords and arrows, we probably should take kiting into account : yes, missiles can shoot quite far, but without any discernible impact on armored troops.

Only at close range (where an enemy charge can wreak havoc to them too) can they be actually effective. The more armored the enemy is, the closest the range of effectiveness.

That would make for very interesting tactical decisions, and make melee troops the kings of battles, as it was historically (while still allowing missile-heavy tactics like the Persians used, but only if done well, and prone to awful failures if done badly, as the Persians learned at Marathon and Plateia, or against the 10 000).

[Outis]

21 minutes ago, LienRag said:

this doesn't happen historically

This did not happen much with armies moving in formation like the phalanx, but in the game it does happen .

 

29 minutes ago, LienRag said:

Only at close range (where an enemy charge can wreak havoc to them too) can they be actually effective. The more armored the enemy is, the closest the range of effectiveness.

Completely agree.

 

30 minutes ago, LienRag said:

make melee troops the kings of battles, as it was historically (while still allowing missile-heavy tactics

I think this should be the goal