Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Wrong topic XD

Edited October 26, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[SirArian]

I have a couple of ideas... They have all been suggested previously, but for one of them, I have something to add, and the other two are mostly just to bring them back up, since maybe they are implimentable now.

I think it would be nice to be able to raise chickens from the corral. It would be the same as the sheep, but would require less food, and would be faster, since there is less return. This would probably be the easiest to impliment. Maybe goats too.

Raiding Calvary that can actually raid your enimies would be cool. For instance, they go into enimy territory and attack a building, and as they damage it, they gather resources. When they can cary no more, they go back to the civic center, if they live long enough. What resource they take would be random, and they would only be able to take one type at a time. It would take it out of the availible resources of the player they were attacking, kind of like a fourced tribute.

And last, but not least, I would love to see a General in the future. He would be kind of like a hero unit in that he would have extra health and probably a damage bonus for his troops, but you would be able to have more than one at any one time. Allies could also maybe assign some of their troops to him, thus letting the other player controll their troops. There could also be an Overseer, who would be the same as a General but for economic jobs, rather than for battle. Also, this is kind of a borrowed idea, the General could cause the troops under his command to attack the units that they counter. So, instead of a swordsman attacking the calvary, the General would cause the spearmen to.

Anyway, these are just ideas, and I would love to hear what everyone thinks of them.

[Rodmar]

A few suggestions/wanting of mine. They are not unlike those in this post (March 2012).

I too am willing to retrieve some American Conquest features in 0 A.D., but I'll try to go beyond this game experience and suggest something useful (I hope so!):

• Formations:

• Entering and changing formations:

Depending on the civ. and on acquired technology (training), the speed of gathering in/breaking/changing formations could spread from clumsy and slow to half running, the best being the Hellene and the Roman infantry, Carthaginian light and Gaulish elite (and some German if introduced) cavalry and Ptolemaic archer chariotry (Brittons chariot were more individual units). It would not only reproduce skills and training but also battle mentality (having disciplined warriors could be hard for some civ.).

• Rigidity of the formation:

Depending on the civ. and on the type of formation, engaging in battle could slightly alter the formation (add a little scattering and lessen the bonus/malus). Said otherwise, some civ./units would behave more like current alpha formations, breaking for individual fight, while others would barely move when their first line is engaged. Also, the maneuver superiority of the macedonian phalanx over the hoplite one is known, as well as the even greater flexibility of the roman century (ability to turn 180°, to shift from unidirectional "phalanx" to 4-direction square).

• Automation and personalization of the grouping:

The AI could automatically form a group of diverse units in preset patterns according to a selected defensive/offensive/anti-cavalry stance. As an example, an offensive pattern (column, square, ...) would put skirmishers in first line while a defensive pattern would try and surround weaker units on all sides by shield bearers. Also, some formations couldn't be "personalized" (by selecting units): see phalanxes (only "hoplites", and only historical numbers of ranks): no tercios before their time!

Also, the player could be allowed to select a conservative/risky grouping mechanic ; I mean, either spare the veteran (like in the Roman legion) or put them in first line to shorten the fight.

• Formation and unit AI:

Hopefully, the implementation of a formation system and AI could lighten the computing for targeting/ranging, reducing the "field of interest" of each unit in the formation. American Conquest could handle hundreds of melee or distance units on the same battlefield, and I guess it was partly because a unit in formation "knew" that she couldn't stray too far from its neighbors. I have no idea of the algorithm, but formations going to melee looked a bit like galaxies slowly colliding (maybe the formation AI would filter what was passed to the unit AIs ?).

Also, animations and micro-tactical behaviour would be great. By this I mean, having the first three ranks of sarissa be lowered down as the enemy closes a phalanx, or a mixed cavalry/infantry having the horsemen charge the closing enemy , followed by the charge of the infantry (like in LoTR:Battle for Middle Earth, Gondor and Rohan factions), having skirmisher automatically retreat behind the first line (of the same formation), having charge specialized units... charge (with bonus) and then retreat to some distance without waiting to be chopped down (before the player order them to reposition and charge again), ...

http://swordandarrow.ucoz.com/

A dream : have the Roman legionary rotate inside their formation (even if cosmetic, it could legitimate a huge endurance bonus). The Hellene's first rank would fight to the wound, whereas the Roman would got to the rear to rest a bit and help pushing the front line. By the way, this pushing would prevail with phalanxes whenever not ordered to keep the position (a phalanx would always slightly move forward).

• Morale:

Moral could have a great and realistic impact, but it should be very tuned to the civ. and the type of units (champions vs. citizen). Mediterranean people would highly benefit from close formations.

The morale feature should allow the revival of historical facts such as the Cimbri "melting" to the last face to the legion, and at the opposite, the Teuton and later the Gaul panicking at the mere appearance of the enemy in their back (so to say). Knowing how to rout a given enemy or unit type could be great, as well as allowing cavalry to automatically pursue and wreck routing infantry (counting sometimes in great proportions to the total casualties).

Maybe the morale system in Cossacks/American Conquest would be too heavy in computing resource, but for those who don't know, type of formation, nearby allied slaughter (lot's of dead in a short time), nearby routed allied, total formation's death toll, death of commander/standard/drummer, being charged at, surrounded, flanked or pinned down by missiles, etc. all of this would sum up and determine whether a formation breaks (loosing bonus) and then retreats or is routed, and whether an individual unit would continue to fight or flee. Some civ. formations could benefit from experience (number of kills) like the Roman and the Hellene to resist morale attrition better.

Suicide (self or throwing oneself against a far superior enemy) could eventually occur (German women in some desperate situation would avoid slavery and rape by those who had vanquish their very family). Hiding and escaping, surrendering could occur alike. A feature could allow to rally fleeing units (proximity of a hero or an intact elite formation). In American Conquest, routed units would gather at the town center, but native would roam the map in a silly way (not a good implementation imo).

• Garrison and assault:

Melee infantry would have an assault score to allow them to enter tower and garrisoned building and to capture them. Distance infantry could eventually decrease the number of garrisoned units, but this should of course be pondered (huge defensive bonus for the garrison).

Captured building could be manned so as they could shoot at the enemy only if the garrison has distance units (although with less efficiency, and no unmanned arrows !). That would allow for temporary entrenchment during city assault phases. (Under a certain level of damage, damaged) captured building would crumble down over time as if in neutral territory.

Unmanned towers, barracks, fortress and town centers would damage the assaulter (to emulate those defenders who fire the arrows);

All garrisoned building would further damage the assaulter, with no prisoner taken (either the building is captured or the assaulter are slain). Women inside building would not contribute (except for some civ. ?) and would be automatically enslaved if the building is captured (or get suicided).

Edited November 12, 2013 by Rodmar

[Prodigal Son]

Great ideas Rodmar, some might bring too much micro depending on their implementation though. But I'd love to see them if they can work. This coupled with a campaign mode with a risk/medieval (the first) total war map and building/economy in the campaign/turn based phase could make the ultimate strategy game. As it would also have the RTS mode.

This part could also bring the interesting option of choosing to level your basic unit when you believe a local battle will be easy won.

Also, the player could be allowed to select a conservative/risky grouping mechanic ; I mean, either spare the veteran (like in the Roman legion) or put them in first line to shorten the fight.

[Rodmar]

some might bring too much micro

You mean for the engine, because most of them would be automated behavior. The end-user would just have to select his units, to click on a formation icon, to click on a stanza, and to click on one or two additional icons.

This part could also bring the interesting option of choosing to level your basic unit

How do you think I'm currently micro-managing my citizen-units ?

(even if leveled units are less efficient workers...)

see phalanxes (only "hoplites", and only historical numbers of ranks): no tercios before their time!

I was not clear with this phrase. I meant: okay, the phalanx and syntagma are already hoplites only, but you still may have boxed formations with archers, skirmishers and priests inside... while it seems historically okay to form such a defensive last square, should we enable them to walk/run to battle in such a composite formation ? It would be like tercios, really.

Now, that leads to the question: could it be interesting to split formations in two categories:

* Travel/display formations: only allowed to stand ground / move without breaking.

* Battle formations: able to maneuver and go melee without breaking, with more bonus/malus.

[Prodigal Son]

some might bring too much micro

You mean for the engine, because most of them would be automated behavior. The end-user would just have to select his units, to click on a formation icon, to click on a stanza, and to click on one or two additional icons.

This part could also bring the interesting option of choosing to level your basic unit

How do you think I'm currently micro-managing my citizen-units ?

(even if leveled units are less efficient workers...)

see phalanxes (only "hoplites", and only historical numbers of ranks): no tercios before their time!

I was not clear with this phrase. I meant: okay, the phalanx and syntagma are already hoplites only, but you still may have boxed formations with archers, skirmishers and priests inside... while it seems historically okay to form such a defensive last square, should we enable them to walk/run to battle in such a composite formation ? It would be like tercios, really.

Now, that leads to the question: could it be interesting to split formations in two categories:

* Travel/display formations: only allowed to stand ground / move without breaking.

* Battle formations: able to maneuver and go melee without breaking, with more bonus/malus.

It's not just "click to enter chosen formation", it's extra options = extra time consuming thoughts/actions, add to that morale with retreating, reorganizing, etc. Nice ones, but it might be an overkill in a game that also features real-time economy. I could be wrong though, and hope so because I like them.

However as I said it would be a dream game for me as well if it had two modes (let's rephrase them better):

• A Risk - Medieval Total War campaign map mode. This would feature fixed region movement (think a modernized version of this). Economy, research and troop movements will be done on the turn based campaign map and the battles on real time. The battles could use extra features like your suggestions (morale, advanced formations etc), directional damage bonuses, even stamina going down with time and reducing effectiveness, total war style. Those battles could also also work in a separate mode that would allow for recreation of historical battles. Units could be recruited directly on bigger squads.
• The current RTS mode, where some of the advanced combat features can be disabled (by default or by choice, depending on how micro intense we want it to be).

And we'll have the best strategy game ever. Best features from both RTS and TBS, extreme modability and the most interesting (imo) era.

Now a question to the team. Shouldn't this campaign map style be easier to be implemented than the "campaign proof of context" or something map? And according to my experience from total war and other TBS games fixed region movement works wonders for the AI, I miss it in newer games.

So my suggestion is, if/when a campaign is implemented, make it this way. It will also save the time that would be spent on a story driven narrative and provide more replayability and faction availability in a sandbox, which could also have various eras/settings or quite easily be modded to be so.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Prodigal Son

[AlexN]

Some suggestions, very simple.

* Tactical intelligence aka patrol mode. Unit in patrol mode can see at longer distance, and attempts to avoid any contact with enemy forces.

* Peaceful scenarios. Scenarios where victory could be achieved without battle at all.

[Rodmar]

Or by extending its territory.

I happened to understand that a Hack/Pierce infantry stands for a sword+spear unit and that it would automatically use the best attack according to its enemy's armor.

But is it technically possible to have a skirmisher/archer automatically defend himself in melee with a sword, or to have a formation manually switch from range to melee (and charge).

[LordGood]

American conquest did this incredibly well, there was no micro needed as the formations were considered as single (yet reasonably flexible) entities. I would love to have something like this for 0 AD, it would reduce micro of the current sloppy formation building and repositioning

And the morale system was amazing, if units started to get cut down left and right the survivors would turn tail and book it to the nearest fortress, zig-zag and be unselectable for a time. Each unit had it's own morale strengths and weaknesses.

Central american natives in particular were terrified of horses and guns (which required constant regrouping of soldiers)

it gives more immersion than having all units have just suicidal amounts of loyalty

[Drin]

Walls in early stages of the game are particularly strong, especially for starting Iberians, IMO that is partly because of embedded automatic wall towers. Perhaps the attack on these should be an upgrade and not something they start with?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Walls in early stages of the game are particularly strong, especially for starting Iberians, IMO that is partly because of embedded automatic wall towers. Perhaps the attack on these should be an upgrade and not something they start with?

Yep, that's how it's going to be.

Sentries = Unlock default arrows.

Night's Watch = Double default arrows.

Engineering Crews = Towers shoot siege bolts (think "ballista towers", only certain civs would get this).

[greycat]

Raised hill forts for the Britons and Gauls maybe?

[Rodmar]

I happened to understand that a Hack/Pierce infantry stands for a sword+spear unit and that it would automatically use the best attack according to its enemy's armor.

I happened to understand it wrong.

Damage from different damage types are dealt simultaneously and checked again the target's respective armor, according to the game manual.

So, giving a Hellenistic peltast a hack damage to account for its sword is possible.

Furthermore, the ability to switch from ranged to melee attack can be somewhat emulated with the multipliers against unit types, but only if it is possible to complexify the system (not simply skirmisher/archer/spearman/swordsman).

Indeed, a swordsman can be more or less protected/trained and that would make the difference not only with the damage dealt by a skirmisher without missile going to melee, but with his very decision to engage on a death fight as well.

I mean a veteran light infantry (that had became the peltast by the Hellenistic times) without missiles anymore would still always avoid a hoplite, but could possibly try and hack a sarissa-less phalangist or an unarmored Gaul?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Rodmar

[Drin]

Yep, that's how it's going to be.

Sentries = Unlock default arrows.

Night's Watch = Double default arrows.

Engineering Crews = Towers shoot siege bolts (think "ballista towers", only certain civs would get this).

Fantastic. Looks fabulous! Love this game, and love where it's going!

[newcivs]

the "Diplomacy" must be respected for all factions, example i play carthaginians "me" vs spartans, i put spartans as ally, and sparta can't attack me as i can't attack sparta

[Lion.Kanzen]

the "Diplomacy" must be respected for all factions, example i play carthaginians "me" vs spartans, i put spartans as ally, and sparta can't attack me as i can't attack sparta

The diplomacy is not a it's maximum development level, we was talk about have a diplomacy like EE and Rise of Nation even like a RTW I and II.

[LordGood]

Do you guys think we should give the Assyrian Broom Bus and towered elephants a ranged attack for garrisoned soldiers? archery is kind of a thing for Persia, which doesn't have many seige options anyway (definitely lower the garrison # to 5 though); a small garrison (1-3) would be cool for war elephants too.

[sanderd17]

Do you guys think we should give the Assyrian Broom Bus and towered elephants a ranged attack for garrisoned soldiers? archery is kind of a thing for Persia, which doesn't have many seige options anyway (definitely lower the garrison # to 5 though); a small garrison (1-3) would be cool for war elephants too.

Yes, except it's currently not possible. You'd need to add a ranged attack to the unit, and the unit would always use that ranged attack. And I don't see elephants tearing down fortresses because their rider is shooting arrows at it.

Josh has done a bit of work on separate damage-calculation functions, and when those are in, we could split the buildingAI (=arrows per garrisoned soldier) from the unitAI (=standard attack).

It's the same reason why ships have no ramming attack, else they shouldn't be able to fire arrows.

[leper]

The attack code in BuildingAI and the attack code in UnitAI don't have any dependencies on each other (at least not in the sense that you can't have a melee attack in UnitAI and fire arrows at the same time using BuildingAI). Ships don't have a ram attack because just using that all the time would look weird, so the primary (UnitAI) attack fires one arrow and that one can be targetted, but all other arrows fired are a result of the code in BuildingAI.

Making the Assyrian ram fire arrows when garrisoned would be as easy as changing a few lines in the proper unit template file.

Josh's damage work is mostly done to be able to reuse features like splash damage and to allow us to implement features like continuous damage or unit death damage (e.g. explosions on destruction) without having two implementations of one feature.

[Mythos_Ruler]

We definitely want ship ramming.

[sanderd17]

@leper, you're right, but the code that selects the best attack is better than I expected. But there is a problem though, as the storm rams will always have one default arrow due to UnitAI (which they will use to attack units). So even if it has no garrisoned units.

On elephants, the problem is bigger, because you do want the elephants to use the melee attack on regular units, but when using the same attack strengths as the defense tower, the elephants prefer the ranged attack to attack units.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@leper, you're right, but the code that selects the best attack is better than I expected. But there is a problem though, as the storm rams will always have one default arrow due to UnitAI (which they will use to attack units). So even if it has no garrisoned units.On elephants, the problem is bigger, because you do want the elephants to use the melee attack on regular units, but when using the same attack strengths as the defense tower, the elephants prefer the ranged attack to attack units.

and if we have a second attack button/command or have special attack?

[sanderd17]

and if we have a second attack button/command or have special attack?

Yes, it's possible, but it will take a bit longer than just "editing some templates" if we want to get it right.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yes, it's possible, but it will take a bit longer than just "editing some templates" if we want to get it right.

yeah I can figure that. but is the only answer. all game i was played before have that. even AOE I. but where is the problem? in GUI, in Unit templates or in Ai?

[sanderd17]

yeah I can figure that. but is the only answer. all game i was played before have that. even AOE I. but where is the problem? in GUI, in Unit templates or in Ai?

In BuildingAI (the code that lets buildings fire arrows based on the number of garrisoned soldiers). But if BuildingAI is modified, a lot of templates will also need to be modified.