Gameplay Feature: Battalions and Formations

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Inspiration, from Battle for Middle Earth 2. In this video you will see:

1. Persistent Battalions
2. Army Formation
3. Cavalry trample effect on enemy soldiers
4. Cheering
5. Informative sound FX
6. Target Flash

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Radagast.]

On 12/10/2015 at 1:44 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

a officer unit who does fight. He is tenacious and have double health of soldier in his battalion.

What do you think about doubling armor rather than changing inherent human properties? If you get close to an officer or focus on it then this opens new tactics possibilities.

Quote

Reinforce: If near a barracks a low strength battalion could be reinforced with new free soldiers (they appear behind bannerman and assume their place in line). Can be done with a aura.

or by UnitAI

Quote

Promote: Each battalion accrue Experience. When battle is over player can promote the whole battalion at once if that battalion has accrue enough Experience.

Sounds a bit too micro?

Else great article always

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, Radagast. said:

Sounds a bit too micro?

 

Could be, but you've gained a lot of apm by removing the mosh pit, so it might not be too much. But I agree, it could be automatic once the battle is over. The promotion occurs during the victory cheering.

[Radagast.]

Sounds good. Promotion on victory cheer. Spot-on! Thanks Justus for the feedback

 

I can understand if you guys and gals think different, but for me it seems some points of dispute in this topic are not mutually exclusive.

On 26/08/2016 at 7:35 PM, DarcReaver said:

"Training units in batches is now allowed". That is another preset for a battalion system. If now someone tries to include a squad system this might work out.

So both your and @imperium wishes can be fulfilled? It can be as little as a UI setting / hotkey if you want to train only battalions directly (AB) or first individual units, then group them manually (A) or in batches. I call B AB as it sounds technically more appealing to me (but that may be subjective).

 I'd also train battalions directly by default at least after the village phase.

 

Off topic: Villages could be cheap and automatic once in city phase to allow for suburbs without microing? The decision if and where you want suburbs / city edge villages should be yours though.

On 04/02/2016 at 1:45 AM, Palaiogos said:

I think 0 AD is more of a clone of BFME 2 with historically accurate features instead of Middle Earth. ... except the bannerman would fight. It is historically accurate that bannermen were the best men in their regiments [citation needed]. If It is more of AOE, then no [battalions]. I don't think it is Total War like because in Total War the just have gold. Nothing except food, and population (at least Rome 1, and Medieval 2. I haven't played the new ones)

Maybe like and yet all, i.e. uniq? Maybe it's more like the UNIX universe: You have the choice ;) Can in theory even be mostly peaceful focus (Settler VI, VII).

Walls could be strong and costly to overcome or conquer, but it is far more costly, time consuming to construct. Then they are almost indestructible though. And not easy to relocate. Can use as a source for stone though

[Radagast.]

WIP implies, this document is likely not fully implemented yet?

Let's try to reduce complexity. A lot of hard edges. Hard to balance and not strictly necessary. That is no offense. It is the natural way of finding a doable design. The document is still great. Few small changes:

Bonus: via Officer's, Bannerbearer's Aura perhaps. Aura implies units need be close. So it can not be abused.

Morale: Nice to have. It works without. Read more below.

Panic-mode: Good idea, too complex design. It is not dependent on group.

Formation has inherent advantage. No need for more variables to balance.

Units either are in formation that obstructs enemies (friction) and barrage (arrows, stones, ...). Or are disbanded and hence every former member is back to vulnerable.

Disband => Vulnerable
Stronger: Disband => Vulnerable && Nervous
Yet stronger: Disband => Vulnerable && Nervous && Panicky
if not calm i.e. something happened / is close and unit is inexperienced. Beauty of this approach: It's independent, automatic, less expensive.

Usually people get nervous, startled and panicky when they witness or expect harm done to others or themselves - or get word of "stories". Quite some battles were won only by word of chaos and demise where there wasn't.

Alone at front line is even harder than in a group.

If a formation size falls below min group size (currently 6) then it definitely will have its toll on calmness. Even if the situation isn't dangerous per se, calmness will be set to 50% to model confusion / uncertainty. To less or even 0% if the reason was death of a colleague. But that depends on experience (veteran vs. recruit, ...).

Calmness is thus easier!  You can be set and calm alone. And in a group. One event / thing alone can make you fully startled instantly.

Morale in contrast is relative! It depends on who you oppose. Hence it is a super complicated concept to implement that way. It would depend on the unit you attack even if another enemy unit is closer that depletes your morale. A simple range check hence won't do. Drop explicit morale?

Morale can be implicit instead. Supply and cohesion increase comfort, calmness, loyalty. That all together can be called "high morale". I'd rather add "Calmness" for determining a rout. That's easier to grasp and model.

If you are not calm you make mistakes. Lose orientation, cohesion, can not dodge, fight worse, may even fall, ... (applies to horses too) and it is usually fully 100%. It not needs balance. It's the same for every unit. A percentage. No absolute value.

Edit: To be fair experience influences the rate of depletion. That needs balance. Easier may be to make the experience the minimum calmness on / after shock.

Startled: This happens. When rate of calmness depletion is very high, e.g. from >50 % to 0 % instantly. i.e. Yet yet stronger: Disband => Vulnerable && Nervous && Panicky && Startled

As mentioned Nervous, Panicky, Startled are independent and can happen within formation. The average calmness needs be above 50% or even less hard edgy above > 0% and calculate group cohesion / density / penetratability via formula like

column_distance between units = member_count / optimal_member_count * optimal_member_count * column_width * 100 / calmness

Analog for row.

This can serve as visualization of how well a formation is doing. May need random to make it interesting.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Radagast.

[Radagast.]

Nervosity can be the inverse of Calmness. If that's easier.

The change rate determines animation speed (for fun).

Shock easier, more correct term than "startled". It denotes the freeze moment. Can have its own animation but likely not worth it on our observer camera. As mostly shock is seen in facial expression.

 

One of a few excerpts I consider problematic in the WIP design:

Quote

• A formation in panic mode is so weak that it has to be pulled back from battle

Micro?

Quote

• Units are still grouped

I thought panicky units run? Everywhere. In a chaotic manner

Quote

• Units keep their current positions, but they change to a panic mode formation (basically random grouping of units) which takes effect when the units are moved.

A unit in panic just stays where it is idle and its shield is suddenly worthless? This likely serves to give an opportunity to raise morale? But can this micro be handled?

In real world a solution is having reserves that can close the gap where the opponent attack broke our ranks. Or reinforce to keep an offensive going without exposing attacking battalions' flanks.

Quote

• Battalions in panic mode can't be disbanded

Logically People will love it (though I agree panicked formation has little prospect to live)

Quote

• Units recover from panic mode when their morale raises above 50% again (value to be adjusted during playtesting and balancing)

Microing. Complex dependency. And now also balance fun. Heureka

Quote

The mix between fighting with single units and fighting as formations is very tricky. Especially the transition between the two is quite hard to get right design-wise.

As explored in an earlier post, to simplify, the battalions can only be automatically created in training grounds / military camp (which can also be "in the fields" and also allows for a rebel or emergency variant as well as big dictator overrule, yes, you, player ). All should be created like that by default.

This volatile character is an important distinction between a battalion and organization groups that persist:
Brigade (containing multiple battalions)
Division (containing multiple brigades).

Brigade : A body of troops, whether cavalry, artillery, infantry, or mixed, consisting of two or more regiments, under the command of a brigadier general.

Regiment: is not employed by us as it overlaps with battalion. It has companies which usually form into battalions for fighting in formation.

We can remember this via its alphabetical order.

These two high ranking officers and their deputies and teams are an optional level of abstraction to help us organize. Some like to micro their armies themselves. Gods! Or "dictator-mode".

Again no artificial limit imposed by us, you are free to create more levels.

 

Disband battalion is disbanded once and forever. It's too late. You need micro or special officers to recreate it. Disbanding means the bannerbearer is dead or has thrown away the banner to run (or has stored it away; but let's say this uniq banner is not guaranteed to be handed out to this bannerbearer next time; makes our lives easier, yet not unrealistic).

A past member can regroup in the fields automatically if lucky, e.g. gets to peaceful ground and another battalion adopts it.

That's how it is in real world even into modern 4 person "Group" level which is not modeled due to person scale ratio of 1000 approx.

Hence my opposition to the return to barracks requirement. Though that is also a possibility to replenish without micro (as mentioned above). A unit then retreats farther and farther either deserting or going somewhere until caught or within reach or voluntarily going to base. It will be reassigned or imprisoned or injuries treated.

Automating that is not too difficult and we really need it or it won't be fun. We want to observe a bit. Not only be in stress. More coordinate on a higher level. Let's say strategical. RTS

 

Quote

TODO: This is where it gets difficult. Maybe this needs another testcase that elaborates on the behaviour.

1. Does the formation use the same behaviour as in C1 or does it try to position units outside of the wooden walls too, trying to keep the formation shape?

It's not too difficult if one thinks of a formation the Thebes way. It is a close cohesion group with strong ties. It will prefer unobstructed interactivity with its fellow members. Shape is subordinate

Sorry for the long posts. Trying to gather, specify remaining unknowns. My apologies for hijacking your thread, @wowgetoffyourcellphone. I know your proposal is even more radical (strictly B). But mostly we steer into the same direction. AB is the ultimate solution and you have kind of B starting after village phase.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Radagast. said:

Nervosity can be the inverse of Calmness. If that's easier.

The change rate determines animation speed (for fun).

Shock easier, more correct term than "startled". It denotes the freeze moment. Can have its own animation but likely not worth it on our observer camera. As mostly shock is seen in facial expression.

 

One of a few excerpts I consider problematic in the WIP design:

Micro?

I thought panicky units run? Everywhere. In a chaotic manner

A unit in panic just stays where it is idle and its shield is suddenly worthless? This likely serves to give an opportunity to raise morale? But can this micro be handled?

In real world a solution is having reserves that can close the gap where the opponent attack broke our ranks. Or reinforce to keep an offensive going without exposing attacking battalions' flanks.

Logically People will love it (though I agree panicked formation has little prospect to live)

Microing. Complex dependency. And now also balance fun. Heureka

As explored in an earlier post, to simplify, the battalions can only be automatically created in training grounds / military camp (which can also be "in the fields" and also allows for a rebel or emergency variant as well as big dictator overrule, yes, you, player ). All should be created like that by default.

This volatile character is an important distinction between a battalion and organization groups that persist:
Brigade (containing multiple battalions)
Division (containing multiple brigades).

Brigade : A body of troops, whether cavalry, artillery, infantry, or mixed, consisting of two or more regiments, under the command of a brigadier general.

Regiment: is not employed by us as it overlaps with battalion. It has companies which usually form into battalions for fighting in formation.

We can remember this via its alphabetical order.

These two high ranking officers and their deputies and teams are an optional level of abstraction to help us organize. Some like to micro their armies themselves. Gods! Or "dictator-mode".

Again no artificial limit imposed by us, you are free to create more levels.

 

Disband battalion is disbanded once and forever. It's too late. You need micro or special officers to recreate it. Disbanding means the bannerbearer is dead or has thrown away the banner to run (or has stored it away; but let's say this uniq banner is not guaranteed to be handed out to this bannerbearer next time; makes our lives easier, yet not unrealistic).

A past member can regroup in the fields automatically if lucky, e.g. gets to peaceful ground and another battalion adopts it.

That's how it is in real world even into modern 4 person "Group" level which is not modeled due to person scale ratio of 1000 approx.

Hence my opposition to the return to barracks requirement. Though that is also a possibility to replenish without micro (as mentioned above). A unit then retreats farther and farther either deserting or going somewhere until caught or within reach or voluntarily going to base. It will be reassigned or imprisoned or injuries treated.

Automating that is not too difficult and we really need it or it won't be fun. We want to observe a bit. Not only be in stress. More coordinate on a higher level. Let's say strategical. RTS

 

It's not too difficult if one thinks of a formation the Thebes way. It is a close cohesion group with strong ties. It will prefer unobstructed interactivity with its fellow members. Shape is subordinate

Sorry for the long posts. Trying to gather, specify remaining unknowns. My apologies for hijacking your thread, @wowgetoffyourcellphone. I know your proposal is even more radical (strictly B). But mostly we steer into the same direction. AB is the ultimate solution and you have kind of B starting after village phase.

I like those ideas.

Do you have any patch to implement this?

[Radagast.]

I am working on it my old friends working on it. Checking out. 0 A.D. repository has grown. Anyone pruning / keeping an eye on history since leper left?

Maybe please use the opportunity to create a historic-master when finally moving to master Git. Can use Git replace for still allowing historic searches on demand.

Edit: It's my fault not having done a shallow.

Edit2: Now doing a shallow, after 31 GB reached my disk end.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Radagast.

[hyuuks]

This one is good, i hope you guys implementing the function arrow, its really help make battle formation, for now its kinda tricky to make battle formation lines, the formation rarely facing where enemies come from 

 

[Radagast.]

Interesting to have a closer look at that (@wowgetoffyourcellphone already mentioned this video).

The arrow method is too much hassle (GUI) and micro for my taste. Especially while in follow unit mode. But a hotkey similar to SHIFT for way points proved advantageous. Also officers should have more counter awareness. i.e. rearrange themselves if possible (because counter is what matters)

On 12/11/2022 at 12:31 PM, hyuuks said:

This one is good, i hope you guys implementing the function arrow, its really help make battle formation, for now its kinda tricky to make battle formation lines, the formation rarely facing where enemies come from

Looks like they do not evacuate the wounded. Handling the wounded manually is too much micro IMO. I'd advocate for only having them hold ground or get evacuated. Not offensive actions.

Also while the cavalry charge effects are better, still the speed is too high. They stand up almost immediately. In reality majority won't get up again. Not in shape.

Units still do not fade out quick enough. This makes it look artificial. Either the armor is good enough or you are incapacitated.

The cavalry charge interaction and the giants kicking units fly is a good start. I will have a look into this.

Battles are holding us all back. Currently these really bore and turn off strategists and fighters alike.

Edit: We need more friction. More counter decisiveness. Easier take out of units. Less micro. In my renewed fork I port some code back and will try to pronounce this kind of hybrid AI (0AD also has a hybrid AI but its usefulness is slightly underestimated).

More like Settlers 3. Set up the industry. Get it going. Then forget mostly about it. You should set the guidelines. The overarching commander. Fight dynamics inspired by Middleearth would be great. But we can do even better. Less hectic (by divide and conquer). More strategy.

BTW you know we now have Open Source Settlers 3? It's amazing! Yes, the fighting in this series isn't realistic nor great experience. 0AD is better in multiple aspects (not fighting - rather overall), but it's still nice and inspiring

Settlers lack formations (besides kinda "forced march") and scale isn't ideal. 0AD could be "THE STRATEGY" adventure itself. Recent history events have encouraged 0BC's return to 0AD engine also. Everyone needs to try something to show warfare should stay virtual. We don't abandon other engine. It's simply amazing graphics and RPG component like Neverwinter Nights but some essential parts are not ready yet. Porting back and forth is less work than expected.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Radagast.

[Alar1k]

After taking a long break from RTS games I returned to a game from my childhood - American Conquest - and it reminded me of this specific topic because I think that the way battalions work there would make this game possible to implement them at the full capacity

Battalions in that game are made from singular units and can be created with proper special units and disbanded at will or after the battalion looses too many troops - in that game battalions help buffing units and lower the fear of encountering cav/overwhelming enemy force in the fights (fear can actually cause units to flee for their lives and be uncontrollable for a short time) - so battalions serve a double purpose:

1. They boost morale for the troops they are made from so they fight in sync and don't flee from the fight

2. They help ease the micro intensity (and also make the game look smoother/easier to manage when fighting on more than one front)

Also - adding battalions might also make sense if you view the development of your civilization over time and would add a leverage to a town/city phase rush if it's implemented as a later phase thing - in the first phase when you don't have much you still build one by one but later on when you get bigger you get options to organize your troops (adding battalions as a tech in a building to research at a city phase for example)

As stated earlier BFME2 has awesome battalion system but on the other hand I see more potential for American-Conquest-style of battalions in Delenda Est (possibly even in base 0ad game) since making fixed battalions would negate a lot of potential singular units provide (not just gathering aspect that was changed in Delenda Est but scouting and building multiple buildings at once as well - sending 20 troop battalion to scout could be a huge blunder if the area is dangerous/occupied already)

[sternstaub]

23 hours ago, Alar1k said:

Also - adding battalions might also make sense if you view the development of your civilization over time and would add a leverage to a town/city phase rush if it's implemented as a later phase thing - in the first phase when you don't have much you still build one by one but later on when you get bigger you get options to organize your troops (adding battalions as a tech in a building to research at a city phase for example)

Concerning the change of game behaviour, i find the macro topic interesting aswell, probably for similiar reasons. It appears evident that with a growing civilization, you would have more units to control, thus requiring you to apply other means of organization. Other things, like economy and troop supply chains, become more important.
It even appears reasonable to me to add a new zoom layer on phase III, so that you could zoom out further, having symbols for your most important troops. A bit like a "fullscreen glorified minimap". Player would zoom full out, then a bit further, and game might toggle view, showing control groups etc. .  It might even reduce the renderer usage, because with a fixed "civilization / imperial perspective", the DoF and distance LOD should probably behave in a more predictable way. 
But that goes too far, and are loose thoughts only. Still, i totally like the idea of learning someting from American Conquest here.

Speaking of late game economy and micro intensity:

Controlling citizen troops as a pure combat batallion is ineffective in 0ad because you lose workers. It has been written many times. Someone suggested an interesting solution for that as well. It was about having garrison effects for buildings, f.e. shorter unit production time. I would like to connect these ideas conceptually here.

What if you could garrison a batallion into a fortress, and then the fortress could spawn troops (faster with bigger garrison). Would also make unit behaviour more predictable in simulation, potentially performance increase. Phase III elite troops could have a faster training rate than cheap citizen soldiers maybe. Also, since the garrisoned troops are training new units, they could be locked during the queue, but gain a few XP for it. Over the time, you might lose many cheap forces as meat shield, but meanwhile would form a small elite force. It could be interesting.

Also might be very helpful to have freshly spawned units from a building appendeded to an assigned batallion / control group as a setting.

Edited February 8, 2023 by sternstaub

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 12/10/2015 at 9:27 AM, Stan` said:

What he needs now are some devs to work on it.

Indeed. Indeed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 16/10/2022 at 1:56 PM, Radagast. said:

Regiment: is not employed by us as it overlaps with battalion. It has companies which usually form into battalions for fighting in formation.

We can remember this via its alphabetical order

I've been thinking about this.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 07/02/2023 at 4:18 AM, Alar1k said:

After taking a long break from RTS games I returned to a game from my childhood - American Conquest - and it reminded me of this specific topic because I think that the way battalions work there would make this game possible to implement them at the full capacity

Battalions in that game are made from singular units and can be created with proper special units and disbanded at will or after the battalion looses too many troops - in that game battalions help buffing units and lower the fear of encountering cav/overwhelming enemy force in the fights (fear can actually cause units to flee for their lives and be uncontrollable for a short time) - so battalions serve a double purpose:

1. They boost morale for the troops they are made from so they fight in sync and don't flee from the fight

2. They help ease the micro intensity (and also make the game look smoother/easier to manage when fighting on more than one front)

Also - adding battalions might also make sense if you view the development of your civilization over time and would add a leverage to a town/city phase rush if it's implemented as a later phase thing - in the first phase when you don't have much you still build one by one but later on when you get bigger you get options to organize your troops (adding battalions as a tech in a building to research at a city phase for example)

As stated earlier BFME2 has awesome battalion system but on the other hand I see more potential for American-Conquest-style of battalions in Delenda Est (possibly even in base 0ad game) since making fixed battalions would negate a lot of potential singular units provide (not just gathering aspect that was changed in Delenda Est but scouting and building multiple buildings at once as well - sending 20 troop battalion to scout could be a huge blunder if the area is dangerous/occupied already)

I'll take note and record the gameplay if I get that game.

[sternstaub]

possible UI control for formations:

Selection of formation type for units like it already is, in lower menu. expand the menu to give settings for "attack" and "defense" formation. Attack determines how units move into combat, defense is for standing down (holding a line). Individual behaviour settings for both could be fancy (agro settings...).

Controls:
Ctrl + RightMouseClick = Attack move without formation
Ctrl + RightMouseVectorDrag = attack with set attack formation in the drawn angle (draw an arrow or something)

RightMouseClick = move / interact without formation
RightMouseVectorDrag = apply defense formation to given area. Could give flexibility if the units would respect the length of the drawed line. for example, if you chose dense line as defense formation, the length and thickness of the line would vary based on the vector which the player has drawn.

...but surely there are other ways to do it aswell.

[alre]

1 hour ago, sternstaub said:

RightMouseVectorDrag = apply defense formation to given area. Could give flexibility if the units would respect the length of the drawed line. for example, if you chose dense line as defense formation, the length and thickness of the line would vary based on the vector which the player has drawn.

I agree we should allow more rows on right mouse drag, with missiles on the back. I'm very convinced about this. Doesn't need to be hadled by formations code at all.

[sternstaub]

It might also make sense to have a cooldown for such special commands (drag-movement), because it is associated to additional computation. Like 1-2s or so.

Regular movement without formation can have less, like 0.2 or so, or none. Not sure here.

Edited February 28, 2023 by sternstaub