Is current status of game any good?

[DarcReaver]

I think units should be created in battalions by default. That gives the formation system a use (a "phalanx" with 4 pikemen doesn't make much sense anyways). Faction battalion sizes can vary, for example - a barbarian horde of peasants is larger than spartan elite red capes. Question is then how to work with the resource gathering system: keep it "as is" or tweak it. Having armies gather resources looks rather strange to me.

[zzippy]

Having armies gather resources looks rather strange to me.

Ain't that historically correct? Most factions in the game had armies composed from farmers. Dunno if britons eg had a professionel army at all, for sure somebody here knows more about this. For Rome it was Marius who created a professionel army, before that they gathered resources when not fighting ..

Edited September 26, 2015 by zzippy

[Stan`]

Britons at that time were mostly clans, so I think that's not too far from the reality either. I also think that's a good thing to keep them, cause it makes 0ad different.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I think units should be created in battalions by default. That gives the formation system a use (a "phalanx" with 4 pikemen doesn't make much sense anyways). Faction battalion sizes can vary, for example - a barbarian horde of peasants is larger than spartan elite red capes. Question is then how to work with the resource gathering system: keep it "as is" or tweak it. Having armies gather resources looks rather strange to me.

To me I think things can be more macro in behavior. In Delenda Est I have started process of making "grove" or "forest" obejcts for trees. So, around 20-30 trees in one clump is 1 object. That way there are fewer object on the map. Can still have straggler trees of course, which my mod does. So say there is a grove, and you task a battalion of 24 men (like in my screenshot), the max gatherers can be 24 or 48, so each grove can support 1-2 battalion of gatherers. If there are not enough slots (max is reached) then the extra soldiers can stand guard at the ready. Similar to farms, if you task a battalion to a farm the men will march there and spread out to as many farms as there are open slots. Extra soldiers in the battalion stand guard at the ready for raiders.

[Stan`]

To me I think things can be more macro in behavior. In Delenda Est I have started process of making "grove" or "forest" obejcts for trees. So, around 20-30 trees in one clump is 1 object. That way there are fewer object on the map. Can still have straggler trees of course, which my mod does. So say there is a grove, and you task a battalion of 24 men (like in my screenshot), the max gatherers can be 24 or 48, so each grove can support 1-2 battalion of gatherers. If there are not enough slots (max is reached) then the extra soldiers can stand guard at the ready. Similar to farms, if you task a battalion to a farm the men will march there and spread out to as many farms as there are open slots. Extra soldiers in the battalion stand guard at the ready for raiders.

How do you gather wood ?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

How do you gather wood ?

What do you mean? Player tasks the battalion to a grove and they chop it like before.

[Stan`]

What do you mean? Player tasks the battalion to a grove and they chop it like before.

around 20-30 trees in one clump is 1 object.

How do they chose the trees in that object ?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

How do they chose the trees in that object ?

Currently in the mod they do not. I have to admit it does not look too bad. Also, in my mod trees are passable to reduce pathfinder lag. Again, this is barely noticeable. Battle for Middle Earth II hadd passable trees too and it worked fine.

EDIT: In fact with passable groves I was able to give Groves an aura that boosts barbarian civs' units fighting within them.

Edited September 26, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[DarcReaver]

Way to go imo. Battalion systems make games feel more authentic - looks more like clashes of armies rather than peasant skirmishes. Also makes lag ingame less frustrating, because units die slower.

[Lion.Kanzen]

We can request to design committe this feature, but at this point 0AD arcade mode must be planned

[Giotto]

So can we clarify what that feature is?

I would say: focus on clear counters and battalion/army structure in order to develope a more macro based game that emphasises the strategical value of units working in groups.

This would be accomplished by reforming the current combat system(increasing unit bonuses) and allowing units to be grouped together as a formation, then grouping to form an army (or at least make it so clicking on one unit in a formation selects that entire group) you could probably reduce a large amount of lag with this as well.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Giotto

[Karamel]

I've noted this 2 points on things to track: using battalions (which in my opinion will join the formation review) and the arcade mode. It would be good to develop your ideas in dedicated threads at least for me to keep track of what is said.

[DarcReaver]

So can we clarify what that feature is?

I would say: focus on clear counters and battalion/army structure in order to develope a more macro based game that emphasises the strategical value of units working in groups.

This would be accomplished by reforming the current combat system(increasing unit bonuses) and allowing units to be grouped together as a formation, then grouping to form an army (or at least make it so clicking on one unit in a formation selects that entire group) you could probably reduce a large amount of lag with this as well.

That's what we have currently. train individual units and group them together.

Instead just make units arrive in battalions by default. Size and cost depends on the type of unit. Units like Elephants or chariots can stay single units and be made more expensive and stronger compared to regular soldier battalions.

Edited September 28, 2015 by DarcReaver

[Giotto]

In my opinion it is crucial that these battalions can be merged together to form an army. At the moment taking individuals and grouping them together does nothing other than make it easier to select all your melee combat troops or cavalry. I think the player should arrange their battalions on the map, then group them together forming an army. The position of these battalions would remain in the same position relative to the army. You could then move it as a single unit into battle.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Giotto

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

In my opinion it is crucial that these battalions can be merged together to form an army. At the moment taking individuals and grouping them together does nothing other than make it easier to select all your melee combat troops or cavalry. I think the player should arrange their battalions on the map, then group them together forming an army. The position of these battalions would remain in the same position relative to the army. You could then move it as a single unit into battle.

Why can't the battalions do this automattically? If you arrange your battalions, then select all of them and send them somewhere, they they should end up in same configuration automaticcally.

Edited September 30, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[DarcReaver]

In my opinion it is crucial that these battalions can be merged together to form an army. At the moment taking individuals and grouping them together does nothing other than make it easier to select all your melee combat troops or cavalry. I think the player should arrange their battalions on the map, then group them together forming an army. The position of these battalions would remain in the same position relative to the army. You could then move it as a single unit into battle.

Why would someone want to do that anyways? You need to micro your troops individually to make them have the biggest effect by making them attack their counters, move them around to avoid unnecessary damage etc. Just A-clicking a group of units into the enemy city isn't really what RTS is about.

[Giotto]

I simply meant it would be nice to have an army based approach to combat rather than a mash of soldiers together. Total war style. Where you place your troops makes a difference. At present you can ajust troop placement in a few seconds and have no need to scout or make any basic efforts to arrange you troops in anyway. Perhaps grouping them together as a single unit is odd but at least you could actively strategise, placing spearmen in front of archers etc. Now you just jumble them together or they move too quickly. Maybe make the consequences of having an unorganised army greater. At present the AI sends troop after troop at you in one long line of assault. And they can win because army organisation doesn't play much of a role. I would decrease unit speed, meaning more time to think about unit placement, and battles would need to be planed.

[auron2401]

Why would someone want to do that anyways? You need to micro your troops individually to make them have the biggest effect by making them attack their counters, move them around to avoid unnecessary damage etc. Just A-clicking a group of units into the enemy city isn't really what RTS is about.

...then don't do that?

Don't force your opinion on those who want to have a different approach.

Formations at the moment are literally pointless.

[Stan`]

...then don't do that?

Don't force your opinion on those who want to have a different approach.

Formations at the moment are literally pointless.

They are merely eye and bugcandy. They have no impact on simulation. Last time they had it was because of a bug. Some formation auras will need to be implemented.

[Palaxin]

On 9/10/2015 at 2:24 PM, wackyserious said:

Just some idea for the line of sight, I don't have any idea if this is achievable or if it is hard/easy to implement.. Just a suggestion.

I have been thinking of something similar, see

• http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20216
• http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3634

Edited February 9, 2016 by Palaxin

[Phalanx]

Maybe this is totally off, but I'm reading a lot of this community members complaining that the game is slow and boring. Is this because you guys have been playing it for a while? Say me for instance, I just got the game at Alpha 18, and I'm still liking it. Sure, the reduced pop cap to make the lag managable is a bit annoying, but I think this game is fairly interesting. I've played so many matches, it's beginning to lose its edge, so I'm turning to Delenda Est. But the new players would still like it! As the game is created right now, it is very arcadey, very casual. A good game to start out on. From what I've read of Delenda Est (I have not been able to try it yet) it makes the game easier to micro, but the adding of auras and larger units transfers more to (at least in the combat area) a Total War setting, more focusing on tactics to win a battle than sheer numbers, which makes the game a lot more competitive, and less casual. It's not that the game is not quite being made right, that major changes are needed, it's just that the game is fairly casual right now, and some people (me included) are more competitive gamers, which is why Delenda Est is a good idea, possibly even an official expansion for the more competitive player.

But I do agree with the rest of the thread. Counters need to be buffed. This is a good step to making the game more balanced for all players. Sorry if I can't provide any coding advice though, I suck at coding.

Edited November 24, 2015 by SeleucidKing

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Think tho, game is no good if player lose interest after only some weeks. Replayability is the hallmark of good game.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Today in the Lobby

Edited November 27, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

See Delenda Est for much better capturing.

[Karamel]

From a message just one day after big gameplay changes, I think there will be much much more against theme, no matter if the change is good or not.

Leave a few days for the players to try to change their way of playing to use those new features and then the comments will be more accurate.

PS: See also Sibyllae Vox for more use of the capture feature.