Classical Warfare AEA

[Asher]

Would it be too hard to make it so if units get hit from the back it does more damage? I am thinking for strategy purposes, then there would be an advantage to attacking from behind

[Emacz]

That's a good question... I think they potentially would take teh same amount of dmg BUT your attackign unit would not really take any dmg because the unit is facing the wrong direction.  However, I think we would REALLY need to slow down the "turn" speed or something... and that could throw other things out of walk.  

But I do like the strategic/historical aspect about trying to ambush, out flank etc.

[Asher]

But let's say someone has a shield, the shield doesn't help them in the back, they would have to turn around. But then, not everyone has shield. Maybe people with a shield have -1 resistance from the back?

[Emacz]

14 minutes ago, Asher said:

But let's say someone has a shield, the shield doesn't help them in the back, they would have to turn around. But then, not everyone has shield. Maybe people with a shield have -1 resistance from the back?

Well that's kind of what I was talking about, I don't think we (me personally with my limited experience) could make that possible.  But it could still be to your advantage because you aren't getting attack.

[Asher]

17 hours ago, Emacz said:

However, I think we would REALLY need to slow down the "turn" speed or something... and that could throw other things out of walk.  

Maybe for cavalry, boats, and siege, but normal units are probably fine. I also think archers should do more damage, it seems like someone in game could get hit with 10 arrows and still be fine (with less health ), and still be charging

[Deicide4u]

24 minutes ago, Asher said:

also think archers should do more damage, it seems like someone in game could get hit with 10 arrows and still be fine

I'm not sure if you want to do this. The major advantage of archers is their range. Because of that, you can better snipe with them, and they don't overkill as much as slingers or javelins. 

Don't forget their faster rate of fire, as well.

Edited May 3 by Deicide4u

[Asher]

You are right @Deicide4u, archers would be too good, but I feel like it would be more accurate

[Emacz]

We have tweaked archers a little... There are two types, greek archers who do a little more dmg but less range, and then the traditional archers with longer range like Persia, Maury and Kush. While they actually dont have faster rate of fire with us... slingers are faster, then archers then Javs.  Each of the 3 major archer civs has a unique advantage.  Kush has added poison dmg which by passes armor all together.  Maury does have a little extra pierce dmg and Persia's rate of fire decreases by phase.  So I am not too particularly worried with where archers are.  Potentially could bump up dmg just a little, but then would decrease spread (accuracy.)  Yes a volley of Persian arrows could be deadly and do a lot of dmg, but they didn't exactly hit the targets they were aiming for. They just unleashed a lot of arrows towards the enmey and they fell where they fell.

[Asher]

2 hours ago, Emacz said:

Persia's rate of fire decreases by phase

Did you mean increases? Or does it decrease

[Emacz]

Thank! What I should have said is we decreased repeat time or increased rate of fire.

[Thalatta]

20 hours ago, Asher said:

You are right @Deicide4u, archers would be too good, but I feel like it would be more accurate

It wouldn’t if you don't consider quite limited ammunition, as I've discussed somewhere else. It will happen what @Deicide4u says. They would be so OP that just massing ranged units would work out in most battle situations. This is a way to measure if things are not working out as they should.

[Emacz]

@Stan` can you think of away "limited" ammunition could work?  Ive kinda been thinking about the idea for a while, especially with skirmish units that can switch to melee.  I was hoping I could use the repeat/prepare time to help out but it didn't seem to work, when you switched gear it seemed reset the other one.

[Asher]

Maybe they have to go to a fortress or civic center or some building to get more ammo?

[Grautvornix]

@Emacz once there was a great mod that had exactly this feature for siege artillery (ammo had to be replenished by special ammo delivery charts to be placed nearby the frontline). Maybe we can get some inspiration from of these ideas? IIRC this was a mode developed by @Grapjas?

[Thalatta]

50 minutes ago, Asher said:

Maybe they have to go to a fortress or civic center or some building to get more ammo?

Not how things were done. Check this post and the longer follow up post:

 

Edited May 4 by Thalatta

[Emacz]

2 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

@Emacz once there was a great mod that had exactly this feature for siege artillery (ammo had to be replenished by special ammo delivery charts to be placed nearby the frontline). Maybe we can get some inspiration from of these ideas? IIRC this was a mode developed by @Grapjas?

Yes, I would first have to see how it's been done in the past to get some ideas on how it could work.

[Stan`]

On 04/05/2026 at 5:46 PM, Emacz said:

@Stan` can you think of away "limited" ammunition could work?  Ive kinda been thinking about the idea for a while, especially with skirmish units that can switch to melee.  I was hoping I could use the repeat/prepare time to help out but it didn't seem to work, when you switched gear it seemed reset the other one.

Well secondary attacks is something that I wanted for a while. But basically you can edit the attack component to use an inventory component and maybe when say ranged inventory is empty if the unit has some special component let's say SecondaryAttack then make it upgrade to the melee version of it. Once you somehow fill the inventory again through auras or trickle or whatever the secondary attack might switch back. You can also do it trhough the gui. That's how i'd imagine it.

Obviously that doesn't account for enemy proximity and other fancy stuff.

[Outis]

17 minutes ago, Stan` said:

But basically you can edit the attack component to use an inventory component and maybe when say ranged inventory is empty if the unit has some special component let's say SecondaryAttack then make it upgrade to the melee version of it.

Grapejuice mod by @Grapjas has such a functionality

 

 

[Asher]

Do formations give upgrades to the units, or make them fight better? I think, for strategy purposes, that in formations, units do more damage, but, kind of like what I was saying before, they take more damage from the back. More damage from the back doesn't have to be for individual units. Also, about the archers, I think there is a point where it gets too complicated, maybe this wouldn't make it to complicated, but I is nice having infinite stuff for units, etc. even if it isn't completely historically accurate

[Emacz]

So my understanding (when we started a26 or so) formations didnt reaelly do much,  You were not able to atack in formation.  What we have done is create auras based on the formation.  For example when hoplites have a phalanx aura:

Polearm (Spearman/Pikeman) promote 2% faster, gain 1 Hack resistance and 5% pierce damage, but walk speed reduced by 5%

the problem with this is you can have only 2 units and get the benefit, but its better than nothing IMO and they bonuses aren't too extreme.

[Asher]

Maybe it would work for the more specific or special formations, and those usually require like 16 people

[Emacz]

If someone knew how to code that, I would be fine with it.  I guess the other option would to make the bonus so small but stackable, so if there are 16 it would be someone meaningful.  

like if it was .1 resistance, 10 members in range  would give full resistance.  
Again I am open to whatever makes the most sense and is as historically accurate as possible.

There are hero's that give bonus while in formation, although one of the main problems is currently you can't attack in formation, so once units attack they automatically break the formation.

[Asher]

I think they do stay in formation, it just doesn't look like it, because it still shows that banner thingy, and when they are done attacking, the go back to it

[Emacz]

57 minutes ago, Asher said:

I think they do stay in formation, it just doesn't look like it, because it still shows that banner thingy, and when they are done attacking, the go back to it

@Stan` @real_tabasco_sauce has this been changed?

based on this template i would say no:

  <FormationAttack>

    <CanAttackAsFormation>false</CanAttackAsFormation>

  </FormationAttack>

 

[Asher]

Ok, to me it seemed like they stayed in formation, but if the code shows that it doesn't, then I guess they don't