Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[leper]

True, we should improve the attack preference code to include/exclude some attacks and use that in BuildingAI.

[greycat]

I am not sure about the limitations of the game engine or if it will work, but I have always wanted to be able to have an open formation. I tried to mod this into Rome II total war but it doesn't seem to be possible, with modding tools at least. The top part of picture is an open formation.

Edited December 3, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

oops... It looks like the "open" formation already resembles this fairly closely...carry on.

Edited December 2, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

One formation that would be useful is a concave battle line, to counteract a wedge formation. Is this something that can work?

This is related to a pincer movement.

" The maneuver was probably first used at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. The historian Herodotus describes how the Athenian general Miltiades deployed his forces of 10,000 Athenian and 900 Plataean hoplites in a U formation, with the wings manned much deeper than the center."

"Hannibal executed this maneuver at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. This is viewed by military historians as one of the greatest battlefield maneuvers in history, and is cited as the first successful use of the pincer movement to have been recorded in detail, by the Greek historian Polybius."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement

Edited December 3, 2013 by greycat

[Rodmar]

Yes but... these were not concave formations, but concave evolutions of an initial flat formation.

Actually, Hannibal formation was even slightly convex to better lure and "suck up" the Romans center into his trap.

And according to a documentary, Miltiades' phalanxes did rather evolve into a double echelon (a "\_/") when the center retreated before the wings could turn 90°, rather than two lateral and mobile pincers only a more supple unit formation may achieve (like cavalry).

Maybe these tactical deployments (strong wings) may be used in a RTS, but the dynamic of the battle would only be achieved with "select and click" and micro-managing. I mean, a concave formation right at the beginning would immediately be recognized as a trap.

Also, in a RTS, we have bird view, so that most of those ancient tricks can't happen (screened troops, dust clouds, dazzling sun).

That said, without minimal micro-management, I wonder whether a "OoO" confronting a "oOo" could evolve into such a trap, given the AI.

[greycat]

Yes but... these were not concave formations, but concave evolutions of an initial flat formation.

Actually, Hannibal formation was even slightly convex to better lure and "suck up" the Romans center into his trap.

And according to a documentary, Miltiades' phalanxes did rather evolve into a double echelon (a "\_/") when the center retreated before the wings could turn 90°, rather than two lateral and mobile pincers only a more supple unit formation may achieve (like cavalry).

Maybe these tactical deployments (strong wings) may be used in a RTS, but the dynamic of the battle would only be achieved with "select and click" and micro-managing. I mean, a concave formation right at the beginning would immediately be recognized as a trap.

Also, in a RTS, we have bird view, so that most of those ancient tricks can't happen (screened troops, dust clouds, dazzling sun).

That said, without minimal micro-management, I wonder whether a "OoO" confronting a "oOo" could evolve into such a trap, given the AI.

This makes more sense now.

This would explain why Sun Tzu advised against it.

Edited December 3, 2013 by greycat

[Lion.Kanzen]

We definitely want ship ramming.

The ship battles can be like this.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[greenknight32]

Yes but... these were not concave formations, but concave evolutions of an initial flat formation.

Actually, Hannibal formation was even slightly convex to better lure and "suck up" the Romans center into his trap.

And according to a documentary, Miltiades' phalanxes did rather evolve into a double echelon (a "\_/") when the center retreated before the wings could turn 90°, rather than two lateral and mobile pincers only a more supple unit formation may achieve (like cavalry).

-snip-

That's what accounts I've read say - it was a matter of which troops were deployed in the center, not a concave formation. Hannibal (fighting on the defensive initially) put his Iberian levies in the center, knowing they were less strong fighters than his African veterans and would be sure to give ground under the Roman onslaught. The center projected forward so that, as it was driven back, the formation would tighten rather than tear apart. As the Roman advance slowed, the wings of Hannibal's army and his cavalry would attack their flanks.He knew the Romans would fall into this trap because the Roman general he faced that day believed in sledgehammer tactics - using a tightly-massed formation to break through the enemy center.

Miltiades, on the other hand, was attacking. The thin center of his line was manned by his older, veteran troops. These men were strong fighters but slower than the younger men who were deployed in the wings. When they charged the Persians, the young men in the wings outpaced the old veterans in the center, so the line had already become concave before they made contact with the enemy. When the outnumbered Greek center was forced to give ground, this just drew the Persians deeper into the envelopment.

[greycat]

Really you guys?

I said what Hannibal did was a pincer movement and a concave line is related to a pincer movement...

Edited December 4, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

I am just trying to see if it is feasible to do this in an RTS.

1. A concave line to counteract a wedge formation.

2. A pincer movement to surround an enemy.

Edited December 4, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

pincer movement [ˈpɪnsə]

n

(Military) a military tactical movement in which two columns of an army follow a curved route towards each other with the aim of isolating and surrounding an enemy Also called envelopment

[greycat]

That's what accounts I've read say - it was a matter of which troops were deployed in the center, not a concave formation. Hannibal (fighting on the defensive initially) put his Iberian levies in the center, knowing they were less strong fighters than his African veterans and would be sure to give ground under the Roman onslaught. The center projected forward so that, as it was driven back, the formation would tighten rather than tear apart. As the Roman advance slowed, the wings of Hannibal's army and his cavalry would attack their flanks.He knew the Romans would fall into this trap because the Roman general he faced that day believed in sledgehammer tactics - using a tightly-massed formation to break through the enemy center.

Miltiades, on the other hand, was attacking. The thin center of his line was manned by his older, veteran troops. These men were strong fighters but slower than the younger men who were deployed in the wings. When they charged the Persians, the young men in the wings outpaced the old veterans in the center, so the line had already become concave before they made contact with the enemy. When the outnumbered Greek center was forced to give ground, this just drew the Persians deeper into the envelopment.

Hannibal deployed his men in a convex formation with the center closest to the enemy. When enemy attacked they let the center retreat and concave with the edges closest drawing the enemy into it.

Edited December 4, 2013 by greycat

[LordGood]

Too many formations will clutter the UI, the ones we have are fine, I've used lines and flank formations to envelop missile cavalry and such.

[greycat]

Too many formations will clutter the UI, the ones we have are fine, I've used lines and flank formations to envelop missile cavalry and such.

OK. My main concern was that there is not a proper way to Countermeasure a wedge. I realize there is only so much realism we can add.

[Rodmar]

(...) Hannibal (fighting on the defensive initially) put his Iberian levies in the center, knowing they were less strong fighters than his African veterans and would be sure to give ground under the Roman onslaught. (...)

Miltiades, on the other hand, was attacking. The thin center of his line was manned by his older, veteran troops. These men were strong fighters but slower than the younger men who were deployed in the wings. When they charged the Persians, the young men in the wings outpaced the old veterans in the center, so the line had already become concave before they made contact with the enemy. When the outnumbered Greek center was forced to give ground, this just drew the Persians deeper into the envelopment.

Concerning Cannae, you are right, but as a side note, I read on several docs that Hannibal might use to be liberal with the life of

his auxiliaries, especially the Celts, and amongst them the Italian Celts. He would rather spare the African, the specialized troops and even the Iberian footmen. The death toll of the Celts was awesome. Granted, their indiscipline (proneness to engage the enemy), the way they fought (poor protections at that time ?), ..., didn't count for nought in the result, but Hannibal knew it too, and used it. I'm not sure modern strategists would acknowledge having dispensable units as a normal way to make war.

As for Marathon, some historians temperate the speculation (we only have speculations for such battle details) of others, only modern strategists would have thought. Allow me to paraphrase them, but I'm certainly not trying to teach you (and the wiki link is in French anyways.)

Miltiades thinned his center only to match the width of the Persian front line. The Greek phalanxes couldn't reasonably engage in open plain if "out-fronted", because they couldn't afford to be out-flanked. A thinned phalanx being less powerful against another phalanx (and a bit less tough against light infantry, I guess), Miltiades ordered his best troops in the center to compensate, and he commanded them in person (he put his own tribe in the center). As Athenians were organized into tribes, it's doubtful they would have sorted the young from the veteran, although Miltiades' tribe is accounted to be more trained. So the wings were not made out of lighter/younger troops with or without the purpose to outrun the center. One wing was the Platean phalanx, the other, the right, was the remaining Athenians. It was crucial to have very strong flanks, especially the right one, to avoid being out-flanked. As for the light troops, the Athenians are said to have freed slaves to act as javelinists and slingers, but History doesn't remember well how slaves behave toward the victory (even the Plateans were hardly accounted). I guess they were used as usual and not as a whole flank (no protection against Persian arrows rains). Although they were present and fought, they aren't counted in the battle order (at least 9000 Athenian hoplites).

Now, being outnumbered and even against light infantry, the Greeks couldn't afford an open formation fight : they were not Spartan, and they wore 20 kg of gear (btw most of the 200 casualties occurred during the final pursuit, when the battle degenerated into multiple 1vs1) ; for the same reason, they couldn't afford to loose their battle line before the enemy breake ; endly, the basic Athenian hoplite was only trained and drilled to endure the armor and fight together with his neighbours, forwards.

When they fast paced the last 100 or 200 meters, the shield line was still surely intact (even if not strictly straight, given its length). When they stunned and knocked down the Persian first lines, it was with the benefit of the push from the men behind, and as they began to feel the pressure of the Persian elite troops, the center was still unbroken, shield by shield ; if not, they would have been slaughtered. What happened, according to such historians' speculations, is that the Persian wings were poor trained or poor morale levies (such as subjugated Ionians), and that the massed Greek phalanxes had an easier time to cut through them, bending the front line into a concave form and finally have the wings routed.

Even the tactical withdraw Miltiades would have ordered in the center is minored : whereas the classical school speculate that the Persian literally spilled into a deadly and clever trap, some think simply that the Persian center was just outflanked when the wings were routed, and when, instead of going for the ships, the Greek wings turned 90° and began to crush the less armored Persian with their full might.

Given their armor, discipline, and morale, the 4 ranks in the center suffered the main losses, and may have lost some terrain, but didn't break.

When the Persian routed, the battle was won, and the Phalanxes likely broke their formation to hunt the runaway. They don't say whether the casualties the Greek sustained during that final phase occurred when they chased the Persian to the ships and into the marsh, or when some bitter fight occurred at the ships, while the phalanxes could have possibly been still broken, however.

Really you guys?

I said what Hannibal did was a pincer movement and a concave line is related to a pincer movement...

Yes, I know those battles are studied in the military schools, etc. They help to understand the concepts, but calling them "pincer movement" seems a bit anachronistic. Although not being a military expert, I'd think "movement" as being more the characteristic of light and mounted troops, and of manipular formations (the Roman legions).

I still think that it was more a forecast and brilliant anticipation and placement, than actual dynamic reaction to a battle situation, however his troops might have been more mobile than Miltiades' phalanxes.

In short, in a RTS, that wouldn't translate into a special unit formation, rather into formations placement, and then some clicking, providing the formations don't break and you can select them quickly. As you can see on the picture above, they are still blues boxes, not curved formations. I fear that this kind of battle could only be replayed ever when 0 A.D. can handle "meta-formations". I barely remember an AoE map for Marathon, but I wasn't impressed by the simulation (no formations with AoE, btw).

It's the same for the "echelon" meta-formation : how could you organize a 30-men squad into an echelon ? You have to select several square or phalanxes formations to do that.

Would it be possible to have "formations of formations" ? I guess this would only be meaningful when we can have that many soldiers on the battle field.

[Rodmar]

Naval combat :

• ramming would be great (a "charge" attack). Ramming would deal massive damage, and immobilize both ships (with a possible small drift due to momentum) but the attacker would get stuck to its target and start sustain (and deal) continuous melee damage until the player actively orders the ship to move somewhere else (or attack something else). At that time, with a nice "row backward" animation, the target would sustain even greater damage, likely transforming the target into a wreck (depending of its hp pool). The target would be granted some seconds to retaliate or range attack other ships. As ramming could occur only from given angles of attack, a directional vector should be associated to each ship (maybe it is already the case).

• "go for oars" would be another "charge" attack coming from a different angle (parallel (0°) to 20°?). That means too that ships would have a vector attached to them. This attack would not damage the ship, but cost most of its movement points and prevent it to spin around in one way!

• the basic melee (boarding) and range (arrows, fire arrows, siege weapons) attack. Going to melee without prior ramming would lead to a side by side approach and allow to capture the enemy ship when a given level (X%) of its hp is left.

• whenever enough fire damage (fire arrows, fire catapults, flame throwers) is sustained, a ship is tagged as non- size-able (and you could add some flame effects to show this). The same for any rammed ship, and something should be decided for ships left without oars.

[greycat]

Yes, I know those battles are studied in the military schools, etc. They help to understand the concepts, but calling them "pincer movement" seems a bit anachronistic. Although not being a military expert, I'd think "movement" as being more the characteristic of light and mounted troops, and of manipular formations (the Roman legions).

I still think that it was more a forecast and brilliant anticipation and placement, than actual dynamic reaction to a battle situation, however his troops might have been more mobile than Miltiades' phalanxes.

All I Know is what I have read. I have not found a military historian yet that has disputed this?

"Hannibal’s double envelopement at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC is viewed by military historians as one of the greatest battlefield maneuvers in history, and is cited as the first successful use of the pincer movement to be recorded in detail"

Edited December 5, 2013 by greycat

[Mythos_Ruler]

All I Know is what I have read. I have not found a military historian yet that has disputed this?

"Hannibal’s double envelopement at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC is viewed by military historians as one of the greatest battlefield maneuvers in history, and is cited as the first successful use of the pincer movement to be recorded in detail"

Hmm, isn't it similar to the tactic employed by the Athenians at Marathon, nearly 300 years earlier?

Edit: Oops, didn't read through the whole debate. I would still argue that what Miltiades did at Marathon wasn't massively different than what Hannibal did at Cannae, except as a matter of scale (Hannibal did it with 6x as many troops). Doesn't really matter if Miltiades used "veteran" troops in the middle or the wings. The maneuver was still similar and caused a double envelopment of the enemy army in both cases.

[greycat]

In short, in a RTS, that wouldn't translate into a special unit formation, rather into formations placement, and then some clicking, providing the formations don't break and you can select them quickly. As you can see on the picture above, they are still blues boxes, not curved formations. I fear that this kind of battle could only be replayed ever when 0 A.D. can handle "meta-formations". I barely remember an AoE map for Marathon, but I wasn't impressed by the simulation (no formations with AoE, btw).

Yes I have been trying to think of how this works in hex turn based games and how we could apply this to an RTS in a simple way.

Edited December 5, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

Hmm, isn't it similar to the tactic employed by the Athenians at Marathon, nearly 300 years earlier?

I will have to look into that.

They did say it was the first one to be recorded in detail... not the first time it was used.

[greycat]

Would it be possible to have "formations of formations" ? I guess this would only be meaningful when we can have that many soldiers on the battle field.

I was thinking about that. If you could select two units into a group. Then pick between straight, concave or convex maybe?

Edited December 5, 2013 by greycat

[Rodmar]

I'd say that it wasn't the same placement :

Both were outnumbered (as far as infantry is concerned)

• Hannibal weakened its center for a purpose : to minimize his unavoidable losses when the two armies would meet.
• Miltiades weakened its center because he had no choice. It was just unthinkable for a phalanx to have a tighter front than the enemy.

• Hannibal widened its front line to best the Roman compact order of battle, so that if they wouldn't change their tactics and keep on marching they would be outflanked by him. It's really like paper and rock.
• Miltiades only "widened" its front line in order to match the same length Persian front. Should he had more troops, we are not sure at all he would have left his center so vulnerable.

• Hannibal managed to provoke the Roman, to contact them on just about their front line's length (quite tight because they were in deep formations), and to keep fighting while having the fight naturally withdrawing. Maybe he took dispositions to ensure that the Gauls wouldn't rout (a second "MP" line ?). When the rest of the "center", quite static and still in good shape would engage the Roman flanks, it would be too late for the Roman to avoid the trap. You see that it is not simply "surround and charge" ; it is "let them fight with only the first row of the first manipules all the time we trap them". This had a cost : 75% of Hannibal losses were the Gauls at the center.
• Miltiades managed to not be outflanked by the Persians and to minimize his loss to the arrows. After the initial clash, his (deep) flanks routed the enemy, while its center was not so successful. Something more "classical" for the Greek phalanx used in trying and outflank the enemy phalanx by its right. The difference here was they were not opposed by another phalanx, but by light troops, maybe not well coordinated (many levied contingents) and quite astonished by the Greeks' insolence. As for the eventual Immortals, they were no match against an unbroken shield and spear wall.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Rodmar

[greycat]

If we could have group formations we could attach wedged units together (probably just straight line though).

[greycat]

I'd say that it wasn't the same placement :

Both were outnumbered (as far as infantry is concerned)

• Hannibal weakened its center for a purpose : to minimize his unavoidable losses when the two armies would meet.
• Miltiades weakened its center because he had no choice. It was just unthinkable for a phalanx to have a tighter front than the enemy.

• Hannibal widened its front line to best the Roman compact order of battle, so that if they wouldn't change their tactics and keep on marching they would be outflanked by him. It's really like paper and rock.
• Miltiades only "widened" its front line in order to match the same length Persian front. Should he had more troops, we are not sure at all he would have left his center so vulnerable.

• Hannibal managed to provoke the Roman, to contact them on just about their front line's length (quite tight because they were in deep formations), and to keep fighting while having the fight naturally withdrawing. Maybe he took dispositions to ensure that the Gauls wouldn't rout (a second "MP" line ?). When the rest of the "center", quite static and still in good shape would engage the Roman flanks, it would be too late for the Roman to avoid the trap. You see that it is not simply "surround and charge" ; it is "let them fight with only the first row of the first manipules all the time we trap them". This had a cost : 75% of Hannibal losses were the Gauls at the center.
• Miltiades managed to not be outflanked by the Persians and to minimize his loss to the arrows. After the initial clash, his (deep) flanks routed the enemy, while its center was not so successful. Something more "classical" for the Greek phalanx used in trying and outflank the enemy phalanx by its right. The difference here was they were not opposed by another phalanx, but by light troops, maybe not well coordinated (many levied contingents) and quite astonished by the Greeks' insolence. As for the eventual Immortals, they were no match against an unbroken shield and spear wall.

"The maneuver was probably first used at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement

Edited December 5, 2013 by greycat

[Lion.Kanzen]

"The maneuver was probably first used at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement

I want put clear this.

As was say a Retired Staff team user:

The game is historically acurate, not realistic. No RTS game is realistic. Eitherway our goal is to create a fun game, not "Extreme Roman Army and Civilization Manager Deluxe"