Naval garrison

[betacentauri]

Can we at least have a config toggle to turn off the ships behaviour when they are about to receive garrison units? If they already are in place, they do an unrealistic shaky dance and seem to complicate garrison rather than help. I'd prefer to be responsible of properly positioning them.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Can we at least have a config toggle to turn off the ships behaviour when they are about to receive garrison units? If they already are in place, they do an unrealistic shaky dance and seem to complicate garrison rather than help. I'd prefer to be responsible of properly positioning them.

You can provide picture, sorry I'm curious.

[thamlett]

what he means, Lion, is that the ship automatically tries to go where the people are so it can garrison faster.

The end result is that it is very annoying and takes three times as long, with the ship trying to move to the men rather than the men moving toward the ship as in A14

[Lion.Kanzen]

what he means, Lion, is that the ship automatically tries to go where the people are so it can garrison faster.

The end result is that it is very annoying and takes three times as long, with the ship trying to move to the men rather than the men moving toward the ship as in A14

like the workers dancing XD? That I want to see.

[Zeta1127]

Surely there is a way to make it so ships behave more like AoE ships when trying to garrison troops, i.e. ships go to the nearest point on the shoreline and wait for the troops to come to them.

[thamlett]

Surely there is a way to make it so ships behave more like AoE ships when trying to garrison troops, i.e. ships go to the nearest point on the shoreline and wait for the troops to come to them.

That's what they're supposed to do. It ends up happening like this:

http://youtu.be/Hy82Mbpnwt0

[FeXoR]

Thats a good example that "game improvements" should be playtested before being added.

Formations is another example. Though units far away from each other don't try to reach each other any more in many situations the "center of mass" of the selected units move in the opposite direction of the target making chasing enemies a pain. On other occasions the stuck in a bunch of trees or other obstacles.

So I ask again to add a default "simple" behavior to such features (making them optional) as long as it doesn't work well.

So please add a "no-formation" formation giving the order to each unit individually and the ship (or other unit) to garrison troops in not change it's orders when units are ordered to garrison in it (while the experimental behavior could be optional).

Adding things like this prematurely and non-optional makes the game worse and not better.

Edited February 14, 2014 by FeXoR

[Lion.Kanzen]

Thats a good example that "game improvements" should be playtested before being added.

Formations is another example. Though units far away from each other don't try to reach each other any more in many situations the "center of mass" of the selected units move in the opposite direction of the target making chasing enemies a pain. On other occasions the stuck in a bunch of trees or other obstacles.

So I ask again to add a default "simple" behavior to such features (making them optional) as long as it doesn't work well.

So please add a "no-formation" formation giving the order to each unit individually and the ship (or other unit) to garrison troops in not change it's orders when units are ordered to garrison in it (while the experimental behavior could be optional).

Adding things like this prematurely and non-optional makes the game worse and not better.

Agree with that. Its the some kind stuff can be good but we need better pathfinder.

[hollth]

Thats a good example that "game improvements" should be playtested before being added.

Formations is another example. Though units far away from each other don't try to reach each other any more in many situations the "center of mass" of the selected units move in the opposite direction of the target making chasing enemies a pain. On other occasions the stuck in a bunch of trees or other obstacles.

So I ask again to add a default "simple" behavior to such features (making them optional) as long as it doesn't work well.

So please add a "no-formation" formation giving the order to each unit individually and the ship (or other unit) to garrison troops in not change it's orders when units are ordered to garrison in it (while the experimental behavior could be optional).

Adding things like this prematurely and non-optional makes the game worse and not better.

While it can be frustrating when things don't work intuitively, its better than them not working at all. It may not have been a case building on a simple working behaviour but, instead adding a completely new behaviour. I for one would prefer ships to be buggy etc, yet work sooner, than release a very simple bandaid fix that pushes the release back of proper ship behaviour.

I could be wrong, but I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt

[greenknight32]

It is alpha software, after all; playtesting is what we're doing when we run it.

That is so broken, though...

[Mythos_Ruler]

We prefer to iterate. Meaning, as long as a feature is written in a way that is extensible in the future, it is okay to commit that feature even if it is not currently working in a way that is 100% ideal.

[Prodigal Son]

Slightly out of topic, but is some nerf for garrisoned ships planned? Their firepower is extremely powerful currently, imo they shouldn't be that much more powerful than ungarrisoned ones. Also naval warfare overall. As the Iberians I had no chance to land on a fortified, protected by navy, island, no overpowered garrisoned arrowships for them. So if those don't get nerfed, Iberians will need one as well. They also need a ship with bigger transport capacity anyway.

Besides that, garrisoned buildings are the same way of overpowered as well. Less of a trouble as they are immobile, but still the most successful tactic (and hard to beat as many civs) seems to be forward building garrisoned forts. The only other viable (and overpowered as well) tactic is mass ranged units, but this is going to be fixed I believe for the next alpha.

If you look at AOE/AOM garrisons add many times less firepower, and for a good reason.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Slightly out of topic, but is some nerf for garrisoned ships planned? Their firepower is extremely powerful currently, imo they shouldn't be that much more powerful than ungarrisoned ones. Also naval warfare overall. As the Iberians I had no chance to land on a fortified, protected by navy, island, no overpowered garrisoned arrowships for them. So if those don't get nerfed, Iberians will need one as well. They also need a ship with bigger transport capacity anyway.

Besides that, garrisoned buildings are the same way of overpowered as well. Less of a trouble as they are immobile, but still the most successful tactic (and hard to beat as many civs) seems to be forward building garrisoned forts. The only other viable (and overpowered as well) tactic is mass ranged units, but this is going to be fixed I believe for the next alpha.

If you look at AOE/AOM garrisons add many times less firepower, and for a good reason.

Currently in SVN only ranged infantry add firepower to ships. I also just now changed it so that it is now the same for towers and fortresses. We can see how that works out.

[Prodigal Son]

Could work, but could also re-encourage the dominance of ranged units. A bonus damage nerf while re-adding a bonus for any unit could work better imo.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Lion.Kanzen]

Talk about that predominance of all ranged, some units can have a bonus for defensive behavior or stand ground. The infantry up their shield to defense. In AOE 3 have a buttons called tactics where the infantry can deal with raged fire over them taking cover.

Representing something like this.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[FeXoR]

hollth, greenknight32, Mythos_Ruler:

And what if the simple way is in the end the best working one (but replaced with a complicated and worse one right away)?

Edited February 14, 2014 by FeXoR

[thamlett]

Talk about that predominance of all ranged, some units can have a bonus for defensive behavior or stand ground. The infantry up their shield to defense. In AOE 3 have a buttons called tactics where the infantry can deal with raged fire over them taking cover.

Representing something like this.

That is the formation known as "the tortoise" already in the game, although it needs better implementation to make it more of a defense against fortresses, etc.

It would be fun to see them raise the shields over their heads, the same way Athenian marines raise their shields every so often.

BTW, when are we going to get the ramming capability?