Historically accurate ranged combat

[causative]

Historically, archers and skirmishers would harass the opposing army before the main fight, and switch to a melee weapon once the armies met.  This was because of two reasons:  first, friendly fire was a thing.  You didn't want your archers shooting into a battle if they'd be hitting your own men.  Second, they had limited ammunition.  A peltast would only carry a small number of javelins, such as three, which they would throw before the battle proper began.

In this game (and in many other strategy games) ranged units have a completely different role.  Two groups of melee units (champions typically) will engage, and the ranged units stand behind their melee units and shoot towards the backs of their own allies as they are engaged in combat.  Mysteriously, their shots always avoid the backs of their allies, and only hit the enemy.  This makes zero sense and is not historically accurate.

Here's a more realistic mechanic.

1. Friendly fire exists.  Ranged units (including fortifications) will pick a different target or refuse to shoot if it would hit their own allies.  If they accidentally hit their allies, it does damage.  There would be no friendly fire at very close ranges, so that you can have a few rows deep of ranged units that can shoot past each other at the enemy.
2. Ranged units have limited ammunition.  Peltasts have 3 javelins, archers have maybe 10 arrows, and slingers can have 50 stones.  Cavalry can carry extra ammunition compared to infantry.  When a ranged unit is out of ammunition, it will pull out a dagger and fight weakly in melee, or automatically flee.  Ammunition regenerates very slowly over time, or rapidly if the unit is garrisoned.
3. In compensation for these limitations, ranged units (except fortifications) do more damage.

[av93]

14 minutes ago, causative said:

Historically, archers and skirmishers would harass the opposing army before the main fight, and switch to a melee weapon once the armies met.  This was because of two reasons:  first, friendly fire was a thing.  You didn't want your archers shooting into a battle if they'd be hitting your own men.  Second, they had limited ammunition.  A peltast would only carry a small number of javelins, such as three, which they would throw before the battle proper began.

In this game (and in many other strategy games) ranged units have a completely different role.  Two groups of melee units (champions typically) will engage, and the ranged units stand behind their melee units and shoot towards the backs of their own allies as they are engaged in combat.  Mysteriously, their shots always avoid the backs of their allies, and only hit the enemy.  This makes zero sense and is not historically accurate.

Here's a more realistic mechanic.

1. Friendly fire exists.  Ranged units (including fortifications) will pick a different target or refuse to shoot if it would hit their own allies.  If they accidentally hit their allies, it does damage.  There would be no friendly fire at very close ranges, so that you can have a few rows deep of ranged units that can shoot past each other at the enemy.
2. Ranged units have limited ammunition.  Peltasts have 3 javelins, archers have maybe 10 arrows, and slingers can have 50 stones.  Cavalry can carry extra ammunition compared to infantry.  When a ranged unit is out of ammunition, it will pull out a dagger and fight weakly in melee, or automatically flee.  Ammunition regenerates very slowly over time, or rapidly if the unit is garrisoned.
3. In compensation for these limitations, ranged units (except fortifications) do more damage.

Game had to have a balance between realism and gameplay. I doubt that devs would change the game in this way.

Friendly fire exist IRC only with stone throwers. It was planned for ranged units, but never implemented and I think that has been dropped.

[sanderd17]

The problem with friendly fire is that our UnitAI code isn't clever enough. If the unitAI needs to check for every possible target if there are allied units nearby (like a soldier in real-life would do), it would cause a lot more calculations, and cause more lag. Because we don't want the micro-tasking of assigning a new target for every individual unit, it was decided that archers can just fire and never hit friendly units.

Limiting ammunition would cause the same annoying micro-tasking, and a lot more shuttling over and back. Note that a secondary attack is planned for some units, but it's also hard to figure out when to switch between primary and secondary attack.

It's easy enough to enable friendly fire though: just check the ballista template, the ballista does give (or at least gave in the past) friendly fire since it's more realistic indeed, and doesn't cause that much micro management (there are less ballistas, and the targets are normally big buildings).

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ok this the point where we dont are total war I expect this game mix both AoE and Total War.

[causative]

11 hours ago, sanderd17 said:

The problem with friendly fire is that our UnitAI code isn't clever enough. If the unitAI needs to check for every possible target if there are allied units nearby (like a soldier in real-life would do), it would cause a lot more calculations, and cause more lag. Because we don't want the micro-tasking of assigning a new target for every individual unit, it was decided that archers can just fire and never hit friendly units.

Suppose you could do that efficiently.  For example, instead of checking that the exact line of fire is clear for each archer, instead for each enemy unit check whether there are friendly units within a radius of 10 meters, and set a flag on the unit that exempts them from ranged targeting if there are.  Then, have friendly fire only apply within 10 meters of the target.  This way, you don't have to check each enemy unit for each archer; you check the enemy unit once, and that tells whether he can be targeted by any archer.

11 hours ago, sanderd17 said:

Limiting ammunition would cause the same annoying micro-tasking, and a lot more shuttling over and back. Note that a secondary attack is planned for some units, but it's also hard to figure out when to switch between primary and secondary attack.

Limited ammunition is similar to Mana in a game like Starcraft II.  Starcraft II is far more micro-intensive in combat than 0AD and that's seen as a positive factor; it allows for more interesting and diverse battles, and a greater influence of player skill on the outcome.  If ammo regenerates slowly over time there doesn't have to be much shuttling.  Also, if the ranged units flee by themselves when out of ammo, that reduces what the player must do.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I like abilities based in stamina/mana/energy bar.

 

so Starcfrat is an rts based in that micro, that a thing I love, but the thing Imdesire to 0AD are special units with those abilities to be support units, like the Dark Templar, can be nice include spies and units with stamina or energy to get their skill to create another layer( optional of course) of gameplay, unconventional warfare based in spies and assassins, AOE 3 have that idea.

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

To add special abilities and things like this, you would need a battalion system as I have outline in other thread. Otherwise, too many units cause micro headache.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

To add special abilities and things like this, you would need a battalion system as I have outline in other thread. Otherwise, too many units cause micro headache.

But I want dark Templar unit as a spy or Ghost unit like an Assasin to kill a hero a later run away...

EE 2 and RoN have spies and was fun. Yeah I like battalion system but not like Praetorians, that is boring, I like have single units to do things. The fans wants a battalion system but have the chance to toggle/switch between mass troop and individuals.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

But I want dark Templar unit as a spy or Ghost unit like an Assasin to kill a hero a later run away...

EE 2 and RoN have spies and was fun. Yeah I like battalion system but not like Praetorians, that is boring, I like have single units to do things. The fans wants a battalion system but have the chance to toggle/switch between mass troop and individuals.

Why not have battalions for troops/soldiers and then individuals special units, like the spies (would be silly to have battalions of spies anyway), scout, etc. Battalions does not mean that there cannot be individual unit types.

Edited April 20, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yes I know.

[causative]

There's another way to do friendly-fire targeting efficiently.  Simply designate the archer's current target to be the closest enemy unit to the archer (using a space-partitioning tree to find this unit).  If there are allies along the line the arrow would travel, and those allies are not right next to the archer, the archer doesn't shoot, and (crucially) doesn't choose a different target either.  This would be fast, and result in correct targeting in most situations.  In particular it would result in correct targeting if you use archers the way they were historically used - when no allied units except the archers/skirmishers themselves are in the line of fire.

If the user has told the archer to attack a specific unit then that unit would be the archer's current target, instead of the closest enemy unit.

Edited April 20, 2016 by causative

[sideburns]

English longbowmen used both swords and hatchets to defend themselves during the Hundred Years War when the French came close enough.  In at least one case, they'd prepared their position with sharpened stakes and used the mallets they'd used to embed them to good effect against the enemy.

[Servo]

@causative I guess we have similar mindset. I really like realistic things to happen in a game. I am sorting out threads after threads and found you're arguments to be very real good but mostly not considerable to the developers for so many reasons. I can understand them because it's really hard to make games. Maybe they also think about how and what majority of current  players would like the game to be. Maybe the engine is not capable enough to support etc. etc. 

0AD is being developed based on historical facts but the actions aren't really realistic. I realized now fully that RTS is mostly based on real times as RT means. I don't have accurate data and facts as to how most pc gamers play and what games they play or which one is really popular as well as why. One thing I noticed is that a lot of players play Dota, counter strike, Starcraft and if you examine the number of units (ex. Dota) there were very few units but involved heavy micro. There are upcoming RTS/RPG games that are very expensive which emphasizes realistic actions and people can't wait to have the game at even maybe $100!

Archers or range units are heavy favorite by most players at the early stages. But when you see them firing at will on infinite arrows and fast rate it's really not realistic. I really don't mind them miss on moving  but hope they can inflict considerable damage on stationary organic targets. They should be able to launch volleys of projectiles (group firing) on a specific target area and inflict some damage on units on that target area. Regenerate weapons (if not doing any action) if there are available wood or metal as explained by Causative as well as fight melee at close combat. I'm not sure if minimum distance is or already implemented. 

I wish I know how to mod the game to have these kind of features and other features that could provide more enjoyment/fun.

 

 

[wraitii]

It seems you are trying to play Rome Total War.

[Servo]

No, I don't like that game. I just want realistic one and this might add more difficulty in beating Hardest AIs. I only play single player on infinite hours but very satisfied using low resources at the beginning to prevent early messy combats. I build my kingdom nicely, secure the environment and wildlife, prepare the defenses before letting AI to rebuild its econ so he can produce massive armies to attack me. If it's more realistic it will be awesome.

[LordGood]

We don't have the capability for one unit to have two attacks. I experimented with friendly fire in Ponies Ascendant, it only solidified infantry into a stand-by support role, though it did encourage smarter placement of ranged units, especially slingers. Slingers couldnt hit the broad side of a barn.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Bu some guys t are working in that.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368

but isn't easy.

[Servo]

Not necessarily changing any mechanics but just unit real capabilities/abilities. In fact present mechanics favor me to beat, defend in the end multiple Hardest AIs(currently 3), I try to adapt my game as to what my or my opponent AI can and should do. However scenario that I find interesting I will focus on that scenario to have fun and satisfaction. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, Servo said:Not necessarily changing any mechanics but just unit real capabilities/abilities. In fact present mechanics favor me to beat, defend in the end multiple Hardest AIs(currently 3), I try to adapt my game as to what my or my opponent AI can and should do. However scenario that I find interesting I will focus on that scenario to have fun and satisfaction. 

Too late have many years planned. And we need try satisfy all our fan base. And the follow game design.

after we can experiment .

[sideburns]

I don't know how hard it would be to code, but it would add to realism to give units with ranged weapons a limited amount of ammo.  A Legionary would only have three pila, both because of weight and bulk.  (That's how many they carried in real life.)  An archer can carry more arrows in his quiver, and a slinger can also carry a fair number of projectiles.  Once they've used up their ammo, they're no more than infantry, usually un-armored.  Of course, after the combat they can re-arm, although that takes time.

Edited April 23, 2017 by sideburns
Typo correction and additional info