Formation order rework

[Atrik]

This poll aim to define what would be community preference for the order the units have by default in a formation. Thanks in advance for your vote or comment.

This sorting order will affect the following formations : 

• Close Order
• Open Order
• Forced March
• Column Open
• Scatter

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8547

Edited 19 hours ago by Atrik

[Atrik]

Assuming we always prefer ranged units behind melee in the poll above. Below a formation with Cavarly first then Infantry, you can see Ranged Cavalry will still be behind melee Infantry.

For modders you will be able customize formations order using this logic  :

by editing/adding <SortingClasses> in formation templates.
In example above produce the formation in the picture. Where you get Melee Cav THEN Melee Inf THEN Ranged Cav etc...

Edited 19 hours ago by Atrik

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

Below a formation

Assuming you had ten healers, where would they be?

[Atrik]

11 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Assuming you had ten healers, where would they be?

Unchanged. At the back, as all units that we don't sort. We could define a position for them if you suggest one / want to make a point, but very likely the current is fine right.

Edited Sunday at 01:52 by Atrik

[Gurken Khan]

3 hours ago, Atrik said:

the current is fine

Yeah, I guess. (I hated formations, maybe I should have another look at them.)

[Deicide4u]

Cavalry was always at the fore-front in every major historical battle. So, cavalry first, then infantry.

Champions are tougher, so they maybe should be in front of CS in a formation.

Another logic would be that CS are a good fodder, so we should place CS in front of champions. This is also more historically accurate, as many armies reserved their elite troops for later engagements, when the enemy was exhausted by "fodder".

[Gurken Khan]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

Cavalry was always at the fore-front in every major historical battle.

Weren't they usually to the side(s)?

[Genava55]

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/the-march-basics

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/march-the-legion-components

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/march-noncombatants-and-legion-baggage

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/march-the-whole-army

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/the-order-of-march

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/gary-brueggemans-the-roman-army-ancient-warfare/attacking-the-marching-column

 

[LienRag]

The logic of having cavalry in the back is to allow it to move through the sides.

The problem of having it in the front is that you don't want to send your cavalry first into a spearmen shield wall (which is the dominant historical form).

 

Move formation ("column" in napoleonian warfare) should have cavalry in the front but combat formation ("line") have it in the back.

Except for specific formations, of course.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Combat formations would have cavalry on the sides, as mentioned by @LienRag. Archers in the rear and melee infantry in the front/center. 

[Vantha]

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Combat formations would have cavalry on the sides

The current sorting is still only one-dimensional, unfortunately, so only front-to-back, not side-to-side.

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, Vantha said:

The current sorting is still only one-dimensional, unfortunately, so only front-to-back, not side-to-side.

 

 

Look at templates/special/formations/battle_line.xml

[Dunedan]

Shouldn't the sorting also depend on the selected formation?

[Vantha]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Look at templates/special/formations/battle_line.xml

Right, but there they're sorted side-to-side instead of front-to-back, not both.

[Atrik]

2 hours ago, Dunedan said:

Shouldn't the sorting also depend on the selected formation?

Yes it does. This is just "default". Added more details in the opening comments for reference.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Vantha said:

Right, but there they're sorted side-to-side instead of front-to-back, not both.

Sure, but that's not what you said. lol But anyway, I agree there should be the ability to sort both ways at the same time. 

[ffm2]

I really dislike formation as they are and also think they aren't really a fun or suitable thing for a rts like 0a.d.. I also disliked the video about cohesion at suggestions for 0a.d.. Not just because of the problems in the pathfinder. Formations may make sense in the real world, when armies meet on a open field with the intention to clash and end a dispute by one big fight. In 0 a.d. the units rarely fight on a open field. Units join a fight from the barracks when trained, units flee from a fight. The player positions bolt-shooters where one wants to control the map, if your enemy sees such a prepared position you better flee and make them unpack and try else where. The hunting and fleeing creates chaos, the fun in this game is to micro and position one self to your advantage in this chaos. Often there comes also scenarios where one player has some soldiers that needs to flee (where they have the lower hand) while others need to attack (where you have the upper hand) just a few houses away.

Where I could see formations useful is as a short one time action as some players already use them. Just before one big charge. But then later on, first the melee gets damaged, then the healers would need to go to them. When their numbers dwindle, they need to back up behind the ranged. Or focus on a hero.

I'm just saying I'm highly skeptical, but you do you.