[Discussion] Formations Review

[stwf]

Since some discussions are taking place concerning formationsI thought I would chime in. I'm not especially knowledgeable about ancient war, or really experienced in RTS's so I think my expectations may match what a lot of new users might feel.

The obvious to a casual user advantage of using formations in battle is to give a directionality to the attack or defense.

A group of archers would get a more lethal attack to the front in exchange for weakened defense on the sides. Thus a group of archers in a straight formation would defeat the same number of ungrouped archers that were in front of them.

So my interests are formations for defending a straight on attack, defending against a flank atttack, and maybe one that was pretty good at both.

Conversely on attack I'd want to attack straight on, perform a flanking attack, maybe a balanced one too.

In addition RIse of Nations has a seige formation that would concentrate on defending the catapults while bombarding a town, that was very useful.

As far as movement, it should really just insure that everyone arrives at the same plac eat the same time. Instead of everyone getting somewhere as fast as they can.

[Hijacking this to make it the discussion thread for Formations Review]

[wraitii]

Since there was none, I've taken the liberty to make this post the discussion post for Formations Review.

Feel free to create a fresh one if it's wanted.

I liked formations in RoN. The entrenchment and the fact they were actually useful for something made them pretty strategic, which was actually interesting. This is something we should strive to emulate (the usefulness).

I'd say they should basically be inspired from common formations in the ancient world. There's not a necessity to have a ton (5/6.. Up to 8). Perhaps some unit types/combinations could unlock some different formations.

Generally it'd be a power vs movement trade-off, to me, but there could be other advantages obviously. Perhaps it could make units resistant to converting (to simulate the fact it's easier to keep morale high). Some might give a Pierce armor bonus (tons of shields making arrows less efficient). Things like that.

Also, right now, units only attack "actively". Formations could attack "passively". Take the phalanx: a horse going in front of the phalanx will not live long, even if the phalanx stays static. So that would give a natural defense bonus (against hack) and it would be an interesting gameplay possibility. This could potentially be done using something similar to the trample damage, with a little twist for being direction based.

Generally, formations should be pretty orientation-dependant, which might require semi-serious changes to some areas of the code.

I'd like to be able to combine unit types in a clever way (swordsman in front, archers behind) to some extent, to this could be left as a micro-task to the player.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Thanks for starting this.

I think these things are a must:

1. Number of formations reduced a little to the most important and useful.

2. There are some "formations" that aren't really selectable. For instance, column formation should just be a "default" formation that units fall into when moving over long distance. You don't have to put your units into this formation because they do this automatically.

3. Formations reduce or eliminate vulnerability to focus-fire. Units (heroes, et al.) within a formations cannot be focus-fired upon, providing a great benefit to using formations.

4. Perhaps 50% of the XP gained by a unit in formation is shared or given to all the other units in the formation--another benefit to using formations.

5. Creating for breaking formations should be intuitive and easy. Perhaps if you create 15+ units in a batch they auto-form into a formation. Maybe since the formations and stances will be reduced in number the buttons can be slightly bigger. Also, hotkeys.

6. Formations of troops (I like to call them "Battalions") should be easily visually recognizable. I have some thoughts on implementing a "banner carrier" unit that appears and is completely cosmetic (cannot attack and cannot be attacked).

7. There should be directional bonuses and weaknesses. For instance, a phalanx should probably have 0 or reduced armor when being attacked from the rear. Perhaps this could just be extended to all units, whether or not they are in formation.

[Sighvatr]

I suggested in another thread that specific types of formations could be included into the game as a reasearchable technology. Like researching Tetsudo in a Roman barracks for instance.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I suggested in another thread that specific types of formations could be included into the game as a reasearchable technology. Like researching Tetsudo in a Roman barracks for instance.

i support you with that. i wanna talk about that.

let do it.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[stwf]

So from a novice point of view the only real strategy they know is flanking someone or coming up from behind. I'm not sure to what degree it is historically accurate, but game wise you expect to really do a number on someone you manage to surround or hit from two sides, especially if they didn't have a 2 sided formation in place, etc..

I think we need to get that working, if only from a gaming aspect, that you get a noticeable advantage there beyond the regular numbers

PS I guess this implies that 'unformed' troops get an overall penalty, since in the end its one unit firing at another, that would be the default case, and any sort of formation either helps him avoid damage or does nothing at the worst

[Pedro Falcão]

PS I guess this implies that 'unformed' troops get an overall penalty, since in the end its one unit firing at another, that would be the default case, and any sort of formation either helps him avoid damage or does nothing at the worst

Yes, that would be the advantage of having a formation. In fact this reminds me of the line formation penalty... Wouldn't it be better if units received more damage when "relaxed" instead of when in a determined formation? This way both the units without formation and those in line could receive the penalty or not, depending on how much time you spent out of combat (ambushes would benefit greatly, here). It just feels silly for lined troops to receive more damage than those scattered all around.

[FeXoR]

...

1. Number of formations reduced a little to the most important and useful.

2. There are some "formations" that aren't really selectable. For instance, column formation should just be a "default" formation that units fall into when moving over long distance. You don't have to put your units into this formation because they do this automatically.

3. Formations reduce or eliminate vulnerability to focus-fire. Units (heroes, et al.) within a formations cannot be focus-fired upon, providing a great benefit to using formations.

4. Perhaps 50% of the XP gained by a unit in formation is shared or given to all the other units in the formation--another benefit to using formations.

5. Creating for breaking formations should be intuitive and easy. Perhaps if you create 15+ units in a batch they auto-form into a formation. Maybe since the formations and stances will be reduced in number the buttons can be slightly bigger. Also, hotkeys.

6. Formations of troops (I like to call them "Battalions") should be easily visually recognizable. I have some thoughts on implementing a "banner carrier" unit that appears and is completely cosmetic (cannot attack and cannot be attacked).

7. There should be directional bonuses and weaknesses. For instance, a phalanx should probably have 0 or reduced armor when being attacked from the rear. Perhaps this could just be extended to all units, whether or not they are in formation.

1: I agree.

2: And how can the column formation be avoided by the player (without needing more attention)? This has to be an option!

3.: I somehow agree. But this should be done by cycling troops at the front rather than just distributing the damage (with another artificial rule). Fully distributed damage would make a formation with ranged units about 2 times stronger compared to the same amount of the same ranged units not in a formation. I see no reason for granting such bonus (but for just wanting formations). I think the units at the edges of a formations should be replaced with fresh troops so only they are attackable from melee units. Injured units could be brought inside the formation and, if healers are present, could there be healed. I'm strongly against granting formations any pure arbitrary bonus. Maybe some stats could be changed e.g. 25% speed reduction but 25% less damage (compared to the same unit outside a formation). Any strict bonus (without penalty) should arise naturally from the units behavior inside the formation, not just be given arbitrarily.

4.: If the units are "watching" (not attacking or moving themselves) that would be OK. However, just granting units more XP while they are inside a formation is exactly that kind of arbitrary bonus I would like to avoid...

5.: Automatically forming a formation could be an optional setting inside production buildings. I don't like the GUI to eat up more space. It already covers more than needed IMO. So making the buttons bigger would not fit to my taste.

6.: Sounds good.

7.: I like that. Say units get 1/2 damage from the front, normal damage from the sides and 2x the damage from the rear. Shielded units could than "inherit" the damage reduction from the front to their sides as well. (The extreme values are just examples and are not to be taken to serious).

Edited April 18, 2013 by FeXoR

[Mythos_Ruler]

1. Number of formations reduced a little to the most important and useful.

2. There are some "formations" that aren't really selectable. For instance, column formation should just be a "default" formation that units fall into when moving over long distance. You don't have to put your units into this formation because they do this automatically.

3. Formations reduce or eliminate vulnerability to focus-fire. Units (heroes, et al.) within a formations cannot be focus-fired upon, providing a great benefit to using formations.

4. Perhaps 50% of the XP gained by a unit in formation is shared or given to all the other units in the formation--another benefit to using formations.

5. Creating for breaking formations should be intuitive and easy. Perhaps if you create 15+ units in a batch they auto-form into a formation. Maybe since the formations and stances will be reduced in number the buttons can be slightly bigger. Also, hotkeys.

6. Formations of troops (I like to call them "Battalions") should be easily visually recognizable. I have some thoughts on implementing a "banner carrier" unit that appears and is completely cosmetic (cannot attack and cannot be attacked).

7. There should be directional bonuses and weaknesses. For instance, a phalanx should probably have 0 or reduced armor when being attacked from the rear. Perhaps this could just be extended to all units, whether or not they are in formation.

1: I agree.

2: And how can the column formation be avoided by the player (without needing more attention)? This has to be an option!

3.: I somehow agree. But this should be done by cycling troops at the front rather than just distributing the damage (with another artificial rule). Fully distributed damage would make a formation with ranged units about 2 times stronger compared to the same amount of the same ranged units not in a formation. I see no reason for granting such bonus (but for just wanting formations). I think the units at the edges of a formations should be replaced with fresh troops so only they are attackable from melee units. Injured units could be brought inside the formation and, if healers are present, could there be healed. I'm strongly against granting formations any pure arbitrary bonus. Maybe some stats could be changed e.g. 25% speed reduction but 25% less damage (compared to the same unit outside a formation). Any strict bonus (without penalty) should arise naturally from the units behavior inside the formation, not just be given arbitrarily.

4.: If the units are "watching" (not attacking or moving themselves) that would be OK. However, just granting units more XP while they are inside a formation is exactly that kind of arbitrary bonus I would like to avoid...

5.: Automatically forming a formation could be an optional setting inside production buildings. I don't like the GUI to eat up more space. It already covers more than needed IMO. So making the buttons bigger would not fit to my taste.

6.: Sounds good.

7.: I like that. Say units get 1/2 damage from the front, normal damage from the sides and 2x the damage from the rear. Shielded units could than "inherit" the damage reduction from the front to their sides as well. (The extreme values are just examples and are not to be taken to serious).

2. I really don't see why the player should want his units to stay in a slow phalanx when he's just tasked them to move all the way across the map. They should just form up into a column for a speed bonus (and armor debonus), then reform into a phalanx some distance from the final destination.

3. The damage would not be spread across all the units. Individual units would still receive damage, it's just that the attacker cannot focus his fire onto one soldier within the enemy formation. The attacker's (e.g.) skirmishers would choose random targets within the enemy formation.

4. Well, all right. I disagree, but hey.

5. I would like to reduce buttons and make behaviors consistent.

[FeXoR]

2. I really don't see why the player should want his units to stay in a slow phalanx when he's just tasked them to move all the way across the map. They should just form up into a column for a speed bonus (and armor debonus), then reform into a phalanx some distance from the final destination.

3. The damage would not be spread across all the units. Individual units would still receive damage, it's just that the attacker cannot focus his fire onto one soldier within the enemy formation. The attacker's (e.g.) skirmishers would choose random targets within the enemy formation.

4. Well, all right. I disagree, but hey.

5. I would like to reduce buttons and make behaviors consistent.

2.: To be less vulnerable. But thinking again with a move command the behavior you described is ok. To force the units to staying in a less vulnerable but slower formation an attack move command could be used. Regarding the speed bonus in column formation: I hope you mean compared to other formations. Column formations should still be at maximum as fast as the slowest unit in the formation.

3.: If the formation as a hole is attacked how far does a unit has to go to be able to attack it? And if a unit would only be able to attack one or two units of the formation (because only they are in range) but the random target was chosen differently would it then advance further towards the formation? Your idea might work and seams OK to me but this should not mean that units attacking a formation would need to further advance towards the formation but unly those units reachable are chosen at random. This should only be used for ranged units though.

4.: Stuff happens ^^

5.: Reduced buttons is OK for me. The gained space, however, could be better used to reduce the GUIs size IMO.

[Mythos_Ruler]

3.: If the formation as a hole is attacked how far does a unit has to go to be able to attack it? And if a unit would only be able to attack one or two units of the formation (because only they are in range) but the random target was chosen differently would it then advance further towards the formation? Your idea might work and seams OK to me but this should not mean that units attacking a formation would need to further advance towards the formation but unly those units reachable are chosen at random. This should only be used for ranged units though.

When tasked to attack an enemy formation or battalion, the ranged units would randomly choose a soldier within range inside the formation to target.

[alpha123]

When tasked to attack an enemy formation or battalion, the ranged units would randomly choose a soldier within range inside the formation to target.

I don't like that for 3 reasons:

1) It puts very little emphasis on micro in the game,

2) It would make it almost impossible for less than ~100 ranged units to take out ~50 melee units in formation, since the damage would effectively be distributed among melee units, which have fairly high health and armor, especially if they got an armor bonus from formations,

3) It makes attacking from the flank less effective: ~20 ranged units should be able to do significant damage (kill 10 or so units) if they attack a formation from the flank, since they will have lower armor there. But if the damage is distributed, they might not be able to kill many at all, just damage a lot of units a little bit.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't like that for 3 reasons:

1) It puts very little emphasis on micro in the game,

2) It would make it almost impossible for less than ~100 ranged units to take out ~50 melee units in formation, since the damage would effectively be distributed among melee units, which have fairly high health and armor, especially if they got an armor bonus from formations,

3) It makes attacking from the flank less effective: ~20 ranged units should be able to do significant damage (kill 10 or so units) if they attack a formation from the flank, since they will have lower armor there. But if the damage is distributed, they might not be able to kill many at all, just damage a lot of units a little bit.

1. To be honest, formations are meant to remove micro.

2. Armor values are in flux. And usually, ranged units were meant to be used to soften up the enemy formation before the melee.

3. If attacking on the flank, it is probable that not all the enemy troops in the target formation will be in range, meaning the attacking archers will be targeting a smaller number of enemy troops based on the exposed flank.

999. Oh ye of little faith. We will have to test these things, obviously.

[sanderd17]

2. Armor values are in flux. And usually, ranged units were meant to be used to soften up the enemy formation before the melee.

I know you're not really in favour of that HP - effectiveness link proposed here, but such a link could really help ranged units soften up the melee units in formation. Ranged units and defence buildings should not be able to kill a complete formation of melee units, but they should be able to soften them up a big deal.

It would make the battle a bit more realistic because players would want to keep their ranged units outside the battle, and use them mostly at the beginning of the battle.

[FeXoR]

I know you're not really in favour of that HP - effectiveness link proposed here, but such a link could really help ranged units soften up the melee units in formation. Ranged units and defence buildings should not be able to kill a complete formation of melee units, but they should be able to soften them up a big deal.

Why "shouldn't" ranged units kill melee units (no matter in which state each of them are)? Doesn't it depend on the amount of each? They are about the same price so they should be about as effective.

It would make the battle a bit more realistic because players would want to keep their ranged units outside the battle, and use them mostly at the beginning of the battle.

I want as many units as possible IN the battle (and actually attacking)! That's what makes a victory.

As far as I know Huns and Mongols mainly used mounted ranged units to overwhelm the European nations including those used to formations - and they didn't used formations for this.

Formations are not better in terms of military strength by themselves (nowadays formations are not used at all). AFAIK they are just good to hold a vast amount of simple minded and undetermined humans together using their "will to live" to be converted to a "will to fight" - leaving a formation when the enemy is near is more risky than just staying in. If tribes are defending their homeland this is not needed at all because each individual has it's motivation on its own (just as an example).

Edited April 20, 2013 by FeXoR

[sanderd17]

Why "shouldn't" ranged units kill melee units (no matter in which state each of them are)? Doesn't it depend on the amount of each? They are about the same price so they should be about as effective.

They can kill a melee unit, but generally, ranged units are better at breaking the strength of an army, before they enter the real battle. Until WWI, ranged units were primarily used for a first attack (in WWI, this was done by firing a single shot). But once (healthy) melee units reach the ranged units, they're no match any more because they lack armour and suitable weapons (unless they have a secondary attack).

When you use a right combination of ranged units to weaken the army, and melee units to finish the work, you should be able to defeat a bigger army that doesn't use the right combination. Currently, this isn't really the case, everything just comes down to total numbers.

[FeXoR]

... But once (healthy) melee units reach the ranged units, they're no match any more because they lack armour and suitable weapons (unless they have a secondary attack).

The secondary attack of ranged units AFAIK is planned to be weaker than it's ranged attack. So why would that help in any way? It just makes the ranged unit "more stupid" ^^.

As ranged units are faster than melee units and due to the minimum range of ranged units combined with the current unit AI leads to the melee unit chasing the ranged unit unable to reach it. Though the melee units would win with ease if the ranged unit stood still (even without minimum range) this is rarely gonna happen right now.

When you use a right combination of ranged units to weaken the army, and melee units to finish the work, you should be able to defeat a bigger army that doesn't use the right combination. Currently, this isn't really the case, everything just comes down to total numbers.

What is supposed to be "the right combination"? In real live it still comes down to the quality of the equipment and numbers. If we don't plan asymmetric warfare it indeed comes down to numbers.

[sanderd17]

What is supposed to be "the right combination"? In real live it still comes down to the quality of the equipment and numbers. If we don't plan asymmetric warfare it indeed comes down to numbers.

The right combination should be something a player learns by playing the game. If all his units are melee, he shouldn't be able to win, and if all his units are ranged, he shouldn't be able to win either.

But this was only some Idea, if others have different ideas, I'm fine with that. After all, it those who do the work that get to choose how it's implemented.

I suggest we come back to the subject about how formations should be managed.

[errt]

6. Formations of troops (I like to call them "Battalions") should be easily visually recognizable. I have some thoughts on implementing a "banner carrier" unit that appears and is completely cosmetic (cannot attack and cannot be attacked).

Instead of a mysteriously appearing and disappearing banner carrier unit, why not make every unit able to carry a banner, then choose one out of a battalion to carry this battalions banner. That way, without the need for a range of different banner carrier units, it would alway fit the battalion (e.g. horse mounted for cavalry formations, etc, would even fit naval formations). It would be more realistic too, as there would not be any artificial constraints, like not being able to attack the banner carrier. If the banner carrier dies, just choose a new one (or break the formation).

[FeXoR]

A quote from "Paid Development: September 2013 Activity Status" thread because this comment better fits here:

"

We only need to target individual soldiers if we want to allow individual soldiers to be hit individually as part of the simulation. We could also treat units in formations differently, and e.g. distribute health loss, XP gain etc over the entire formation. To allow for some strategy it would probably be more relevant to divide them into say four areas (left/right flanks, and front and back), but four is still a lot less than 40 =) Individual arrows should probably still be shown as hitting individual units, but I believe they're already separate from the simulation (at least in some ways), so that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

And while I don't know about Total War I definitely think they only use formations for everything, the individual units are just graphical representations of them as far as I've understood things.

PLZ don't treat formations as units! That will throw away one of the most basic aspect of RTS games and will extremely favor formations (especially those with many units in it) over single units (because focused fire would be impossible against formations).

That would mean a formation with 2 units is about 1/3rd stronger than a the same troops not in a formation.

(Calculation: Assuming a unit dies after 4 attacks. Formation attacks the first non-formation unit. It will die after 2 attacks. by then at least 1 of the attack against the formation would likely hit each unit in the formation (if the target is chosen randomly) so both are still alive (since 4-1 attack at most hit one of them) so in the 3rd attack the formation still has 2 attacks while the single units in total (well, OK in this case only one is left) has only one left).

This effect gets stronger for more units in the formation (because the damage (even if the target is randomly chosen) can be distributed amongst more units).

Additionally (if we are serious with the max. range of the units) big formations would have to run into each other if the formation width is larger than the units ranges (which is quite likely) to guaranty (not possible at all for big formations) the (randomly chosen) unit of the opposing formation is in range.

So at least something will happen breaking unit behaviour/game rules (like max. range) even further.

I strongly opposing this idea from a gameplay and logic point of view!

"

We would never distribute damage across the entire formation. Even in Total War games each soldier is its own entity of sorts and takes and gives his own damage. We'd likely do formations like in Battle for Middle Earth 2, where they act mostly as a way of controlling large amounts of soldiers and keeping them look nice and neat and not so messy. I posit that the "mosh pit" approach to combat is a dead concept and no new RTS game should adopt it.

The Battle for Middle Earth 2 has among of the worst solutions for combat of any RTS game I have played so far (just topped by the first part and Cossacks).

Many melee units can't reach the fight even if only about 20 are around. That's why ranged fighters get dominant even faster with rising numbers of involved units.

This will even get worse with greater battalions (AFAIK in TBfME2 it where 5-10 per battalion?) like it will happen in 0 A.D..

Considering a formation with 100 units making a 10x10 square formation. If it meats a similar formation only 10 melee units can fight. 1/10th. I call that an optimized minimum in effectiveness (well a circle would be even better).

In my previous post I don't assume the damage is dealt to the battalion but to a random unit in the battalion. That's enough to make it much stronger because focused fire will not be possible.

Why do you think this would be better?

Edited September 26, 2013 by FeXoR

[Lion.Kanzen]

For me the best gameplay example is Rise and Fall civilizations at war. With inteligent battalions you produce single units and they when are togheter form a single unit and have own stats, the game actually is free for the bankrupt of Midway, the creators was Rick Goodman and his Studios.

[FeXoR]

For me the best gameplay example is Rise and Fall civilizations at war. With inteligent battalions you produce single units and they when are togheter form a single unit and have own stats, the game actually is free for the bankrupt of Midway, the creators was Rick Goodman and his Studios.

Thanks for this!

However, I tested it and and this game has many flaws:

- Totally imbalanced (for example Persians build one random unit type for free at hero lvl 4).

- Economy only matters at early stage of the game since later on with only 1/10th of your population limit used for workers/builders is enough to have resources to build everything including a constant flow of armies.

- Due to formations most units aren't able to attack in fights. Still the 3 to 5 units capable of fighting deal more damage than 50 units would do on their own. This is totally unrealistic and unacceptable for me. Additionally if a formation breaks not all units will be selected when you handle them with control groups. Moving formations across the map is a pain: Sometimes the formation will not move to the target location at all and sometimes single units break away from the battalion.

- Attack move does not really work: Sometimes units don't stop and attack even if attackable enemies are in range. Siege units with an attack-move order don't attack walls even if they are capable of attacking them.

- Heroes are MUCH to strong in hero mode. A single hero can kill an entire army and has still full fife afterwards (when you exit hero mode).

I like the naval battles (ramming/boarding) but ships are totally overpowered because they are siege units, towers and barracks in one unit and cost less than each of these.

Over all I'd consider this game a nice looking battle game worth a weekend of playing (and maybe more if you play the campaigns though the triggers are terribly chosen). But in no way it has the close to everlasting replayability of AoE II - AoK/AoC and I'd not even consider it a realtime strategy game due to the lack of serious economy, the impossibility of rushes, the extremely short build up/economic growth phase and the extreme powerful egoshooter like hero mode.

As can be seen the biggest problem is the balancing (especially the heroes) and formations.

I hope 0 A.D. does not make the same mistakes.

Edited October 8, 2013 by FeXoR

[sanderd17]

A quote from "Paid Development: September 2013 Activity Status" thread because this comment better fits here:

"

PLZ don't treat formations as units! That will throw away one of the most basic aspect of RTS games and will extremely favor formations (especially those with many units in it) over single units (because focused fire would be impossible against formations).

That would mean a formation with 2 units is about 1/3rd stronger than a the same troops not in a formation.

(Calculation: Assuming a unit dies after 4 attacks. Formation attacks the first non-formation unit. It will die after 2 attacks. by then at least 1 of the attack against the formation would likely hit each unit in the formation (if the target is chosen randomly) so both are still alive (since 4-1 attack at most hit one of them) so in the 3rd attack the formation still has 2 attacks while the single units in total (well, OK in this case only one is left) has only one left).

This effect gets stronger for more units in the formation (because the damage (even if the target is randomly chosen) can be distributed amongst more units).

Additionally (if we are serious with the max. range of the units) big formations would have to run into each other if the formation width is larger than the units ranges (which is quite likely) to guaranty (not possible at all for big formations) the (randomly chosen) unit of the opposing formation is in range.

So at least something will happen breaking unit behaviour/game rules (like max. range) even further.

I strongly opposing this idea from a gameplay and logic point of view!

"

I disagree with that. Formations should be stronger, but IMO there should be no default formation (soldiers should move like females when the player doesn't care about formations), and the requirements for formations should be more severe (like battle line may only contain 10 to 20 melee units, skirmish may only contain ranged units of one type, Phalanx may only contain 8 to 20 speermen ...). That formation should get a strength, depending on the type of formation and the number of units (like for Phalanx formation, the total attack of the first line + 80% of the second line + 50% of the third line, then multiplied by some balancing factor).

If people can choose to care or not care about formation, I have no problem with formations being stronger. It can be balanced too.

I have no idea on how to implement it logically though. Formations are already entities, so I don't think it will be too hard (when we have the right pathfinder interface).

[FeXoR]

If it is balanced I don't really have a problem with optional formations.

But I can't see why the first line should get 230% damage just because they're in a formation?! That seams totally unrealistic for me.

And realism is what 0 A.D. is said to focus on (if possible to implement ofc).

Not implementing such strange formation buffs would be both: More realistic and easier to implement.

As I said before I got no problems with making formations work by implementing the reason why they worked in real life back than (I think it's mostly "feel of (false) safety" and could be fused with "believe" and "stamina" to "moral" maybe).

Edited October 8, 2013 by FeXoR

[greenknight32]

-snip-

But I can't see why the first line should get 230% damage just because they're in a formation?! That seams totally unrealistic for me.

-snip-

In a Phalanx, they used very long spears, and the men behind poked their spears between the men in front to stab at the enemy. Not just the men in front were inflicting damage. What Sander is saying is that the men behind should do some damage, but not as much as the front rank. Makes sense to me.