Suggestion about combat

[mhat]

Hi there,

First let me say thank you for this amazing project - I have been enjoying each of the releases over the past couple of years.

I have one suggestion - apologies as always if this has already been mentioned/discussed/rejected:

I like that 0 ad is trying to create a point of difference, but from playing the latest release I find that the combat doesn't yet allow for as much strategic decision making as I would like. This may be unpopular with those who enjoy a faster paced RTS game, but I think that there would be a lot more depth/uniqueness to the combat system if combat itself lasted much longer and units moved slower.

If battles between units lasted much longer then there is more opportunity to redistribute units, reinforce particular parts of the battle or find good match ups for units. If, for example, you notice that the opponent has a particular strong group of hoplite units in the centre of the battle that will break through your own units, then reinforcements can be brought there or archers deployed closer to that position. If archers are picking off units on your flank, there is an opportunity to bring in those cavalry units that may have dealt easily with their opponents elsewhere in a battle. Imagine the tension of knowing that your smaller or weaker army will soon be torn apart if you can't quickly get a supporting army in place (this could happen currently, but a weaker army is likely to last a minute at the most so reinforcements are likely to engage in a new battle rather than reinforcing the current one). Slower unit movement would also place more emphasis on strategic decision making in the battle itself.

My point is that drastically extending the amount of time that opposing armies are face to face would open up many more opportunities for real strategic decisions and give this game a greater point of difference. For those who have played Sins of a Solar System (I know, completely different setting, but the strategic calculus could be similar) this is closer to what I am thinking. Another example may be the pace of combat in the total war series, though of course there are a much larger number of units present there.

I'm probably in the minority by suggesting this, but just thought it is better to put it out there rather than keep it to myself! I'm sure I will keep enjoying 0 AD in any case!

[NoMolester]

Instead of making them move slower, maps could be bigger.

[serveurix]

Instead of making them move slower, maps could be bigger.

With the current performance issues, using bigger maps is actually an effective way to make units slower. :]

[Kimball]

I think one key solution would be to make sure units don't break formation when they encounter a group of enemies. This would inevitably make everything more strategic (and make you choose your formations more wisely). Since they all tend to scatter when a battle begins, everyone dies quicker. That's not how these battles were fought, and there's a good reason for that.

[Sighvatr]

I like the suggestion to put more emphasis in battle.

Just because you increase the map size, it doesnt mean that it will slow down combat. The only difference is the delay of time to get to the battle scene. The battles will still end quickly.

The only problem I see about slowing down combat speed, is that battles will grow larger, because players can produce troops fast enough to constantly reinforce. One ongoing battle could determine the winner.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like the suggestion to put more emphasis in battle.

Just because you increase the map size, it doesnt mean that it will slow down combat. The only difference is the delay of time to get to the battle scene. The battles will still end quickly.

The only problem I see about slowing down combat speed, is that battles will grow larger, because players can produce troops fast enough to constantly reinforce. One ongoing battle could determine the winner.

but you can perfom control units in a battle. may becan be set in options.

[mhat]

The only problem I see about slowing down combat speed, is that battles will grow larger, because players can produce troops fast enough to constantly reinforce. One ongoing battle could determine the winner.

I agree, it would need to be well balanced. There is also a risk of alienating some players (why is it taking so long for this guy to die!). I think that if combat itself takes longer then the speed of units needs to slow down as well to prevent one rolling battle lasting forever.

The use of formations is also key - and I'm sure this will be continually developed anyway. Perhaps units only last a lot longer in battle when in a formation? (That way a few units by themselves can still be killed quite quickly).

[mhat]

I am the wrong person to comment on historical accuracy, but I would have thought that in ancient warfare battles between formations of units would take a considerable amount of time and involve a significant degree of maneuvering?

[Sighvatr]

Slowing down unit speed in general, slows down the entire game itself. I think the amount of time it takes to build an economy is reasonable as of now. I dont think there is any reason we should speed or slow down combat. I just suggest that we have more control over the battle than to watch our units play a rock-paper-scissors battle.

[greenknight32]

The use of formations is also key - and I'm sure this will be continually developed anyway. Perhaps units only last a lot longer in battle when in a formation? (That way a few units by themselves can still be killed quite quickly).

Very good point. When its formation was broken up, usually an army was defeated. To be realistic, a formation might break if it was outflanked or suffered too high a percentage of casualties.

[J-Dx]

Why not make the AI set up its army into formations just outside/inside the player's border? Then after a pause (giving the player time to respond and think about tactics) the enemy could advance 'set up' rather than just marching into your base in a big column. e.g. the Ai puts two formations (lines) of spears/swords at the front, a line of archers a little behind and a group of cavalry at the flank(s) and then advances forwards like this once inside your territory.

[Jambab]

Be nice to maybe have it all in the options before the beginning of a game, to have either the default combat or slow combat.

[serveurix]

Why not make the AI set up its army into formations just outside/inside the player's border? Then after a pause (giving the player time to respond and think about tactics) the enemy could advance 'set up' rather than just marching into your base in a big column. e.g. the Ai puts two formations (lines) of spears/swords at the front, a line of archers a little behind and a group of cavalry at the flank(s) and then advances forwards like this once inside your territory.

Some RTS games provide a click-and-drag way for attacking. You click an few meters before the enemy and drag the mouse in the direction you want your units to advance, and instead of a flag, it draws a small segment on the ground. The units march in line until they reach the first point of the segment, then advance in formation to the second point of the segment. It's also a good way to ask your cavalry to charge on a specific part of the land.

[mhat]

Why not make the AI set up its army into formations just outside/inside the player's border? Then after a pause (giving the player time to respond and think about tactics) the enemy could advance 'set up' rather than just marching into your base in a big column. e.g. the Ai puts two formations (lines) of spears/swords at the front, a line of archers a little behind and a group of cavalry at the flank(s) and then advances forwards like this once inside your territory.

I like the idea of these sort of battles but I'm not sure about the pause function. If formations are designed to greatly strengthen the force of each of the soldiers within them then this sort of strategy could be incentivized without pausing the game. For example, when arriving at the enemy town, if sending soldiers in to attack gatherers and buildings pulls them out of formation and makes them much more vulnerable to attack, then it might make sense to wait with an army in formation on the outside of the town to see if the defenders can muster their own army. If these incentives were part of the game mechanics then it would make sense for human players and would also inform the design of AI too.

[mhat]

Slowing down unit speed in general, slows down the entire game itself. I think the amount of time it takes to build an economy is reasonable as of now. I dont think there is any reason we should speed or slow down combat. I just suggest that we have more control over the battle than to watch our units play a rock-paper-scissors battle.

I agree about the speed of economy - I wouldn't want to see units move any slower when conducting economic activities. Perhaps units inside territory would still move the same speed, but outside of their territory they move at a slower pace?

I guess having greater control over battles is why I mentioned this - I feel the pace of battle reduced control because everything is over so quickly. There may be other ways to tackle this though rather than just increasing hitpoints as I suggested.

[mhat]

Be nice to maybe have it all in the options before the beginning of a game, to have either the default combat or slow combat.

Agreed - besides preferences of different individuals I can't decide what I want half the time - sometimes I want a fast paced rts that I don't have to think about too much, and other times I want something with more depth!

[Sighvatr]

I agree about the speed of economy - I wouldn't want to see units move any slower when conducting economic activities. Perhaps units inside territory would still move the same speed, but outside of their territory they move at a slower pace?

I guess having greater control over battles is why I mentioned this - I feel the pace of battle reduced control because everything is over so quickly. There may be other ways to tackle this though rather than just increasing hitpoints as I suggested.

If units moved slow when they step outside of their territory, it still slows the game down. You take away some people's economic strategies. The speed set for each unit is already pretty balanced. It is the combat itself that needs features. If we implement a Roman Turtle formation that allows your infantry to become immune to projectiles, than that slows down the combat, and the opponent has to rethink his strategies. Also, slowing down unit speed in general does not let you perform quick surprise attacks as fast.

Why not make the AI set up its army into formations just outside/inside the player's border? Then after a pause (giving the player time to respond and think about tactics) the enemy could advance 'set up' rather than just marching into your base in a big column. e.g. the Ai puts two formations (lines) of spears/swords at the front, a line of archers a little behind and a group of cavalry at the flank(s) and then advances forwards like this once inside your territory.

That'll make the game too easy. Lol

[J-Dx]

That'll make the game too easy. Lol

Well, that depends on how good the AI is. If it could respond by changing formations when it spots your troops. Once formations give good bonuses it won't be easy. A column, which offers no protective or offensive bonus, would be easy to kill compared to other formations (hopefully! Otherwise formations become little more than eye-candy). It also doesn't have to pause long, just a handful of seconds to give you time to react.