[Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

[Prodigal Son]

2 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

That sounds more like AoK. Not that that's a bad thing. AoK has a lot of good things. Many seem against small battalions, so AoK continues to remain the most closely related game.  I don't find unit promotion useful at all from a gameplay perspective the way it is currently implemented. I do hope it could be kept, but it will need some adjustments. As it is, promotion doesn't really hurt anything, but it's almost completely useless. Ranking up by a technology (like AoK) affects gameplay more directly by giving the player more control of when and what to upgrade, and is also easier to balance. (Viable promotion would be difficult to balance. It currently doesn't affect the balance, but that's because it doesn't really affect the gameplay either.) It would be possible to have class upgrades and use promotion for other effects rather than remove entirely. Promotion could also be a way to access classes early for a limited group of your units before you research a class upgrade tech. Once you researched it, all the other units you have at that rank would "catch up"  to the new class/rank.

Indeed it sounds like AOK. And imo it's not about copying or not copying a game, it's about doing the best we can do. In AOK unique units are truely unique in function, by not being just stronger versions of low-tech troops. In other games with fantasy settings another approach is used, with late game units of various shapes, sizes and functions (a mix of flyers, monsters, giants, elite warriors, use of active abilities, magic etc). Both are superior from a gameplay perspective to the approach used in 0 A.D. but the AOK one is the only I can see fit for use in the game. Perhaps someone could come up with more unique ideas on champions that still fit in.

I'm not against battalions, but I can see them a bit hard to implement on the coding side. Here I expand a bit on this.

On ranking up vs tech upgrades, mostly agreed, excluding the fact that ranking up has a snowball effect so it affects gameplay. One extra issue I see with ranking up is that it encourages tedious microing. To be as effective as you can, you need to keep separating low rank soldiers for labor and higher rank soldiers for combat.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I think the reason unit ranking works well with battalions is because the units in battalions regenerate (albeit slowly) which allows steady progress to be made when gradually levelling during battles. The current promotion system has individual units which die too easily. This makes it too difficult to retreat and salvage your veteran troops. You end up with a mix of low and high ranks that just tend to cycle rather than gradually increase in strength; the net effect of a few higher ranked units mixed in is negligible. "Champion" units are always preferred and resources are the only limiting factor. It is orders of magnitude more effective to work on resource management and train champion units, than it is to micromanage unit training to create an army of elite (veteran) troops. These "elite" troops also happen to be weaker than champion units which makes the situation worse.

As you mentioned, in other games individual unit ranking is reserved for very strong, unique units like true elite warriors and heroes. I just feel that it isn't really working well currently which is sad because there is likely a lot of potential. It doesn't break anything and the game is still enjoyable, so it's mostly just been left alone.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Other thing that Battalion system never was thinking, for (Total War) you can manage phalanx great but manipular roman tactics, specially split the battalion in little commandos to try surround the phalanx formation. and doesn't work vs guerrilla warfare. these games only emulated disciplined order armies tactics, those doesn't work vs Iberian for many reasons.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Other thing that Battalion system never was thinking, for (Total War) you can manage phalanx great but manipular roman tactics, specially split the battalion in little commandos to try surround the phalanx formation. and doesn't work vs guerrilla warfare. these games only emulated disciplined order armies tactics, those doesn't work vs Iberian for many reasons.

These "small units" you're talking about were still hundreds of men. A proposed battalion is about 24 soldiers. Not aiming for a simulation, only an approximation. 

[Prodigal Son]

53 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

I think the reason unit ranking works well with battalions is because the units in battalions regenerate (albeit slowly) which allows steady progress to be made when gradually levelling during battles. The current promotion system has individual units which die too easily. This makes it too difficult to retreat and salvage your veteran troops. You end up with a mix of low and high ranks that just tend to cycle rather than gradually increase in strength; the net effect of a few higher ranked units mixed in is negligible. "Champion" units are always preferred and resources are the only limiting factor. It is orders of magnitude more effective to work on resource management and train champion units, than it is to micromanage unit training to create an army of elite (veteran) troops. These "elite" troops also happen to be weaker than champion units which makes the situation worse.

As you mentioned, in other games individual unit ranking is reserved for very strong, unique units like true elite warriors and heroes. I just feel that it isn't really working well currently which is sad because there is likely a lot of potential. It doesn't break anything and the game is still enjoyable, so it's mostly just been left alone.

The balance between ranked up citizen soldiers and champions could be easily changed, it's just editing a few numbers in the desired direction. That said, I don't like them ranking up in the current gameplay form for reasons I've already mentioned. Your point of idealy having to single out and save individuals in order to have max army efficiency is another in that direction.

The example from fantasy games was about a different approach to late game units, one with great variety, not about level up and heroes. It often mixes with that though and that's another big discussion with many pros and cons in gameplay. In general leveling units, much like battalions (or a combination of both), better fit in games with simpler economy because they usually require more individual micro. They are also very hard to balance. Especially in the case of leveling heroes with active skills and the like, the game becomes prone to focusing too much around them. They might lead to win or lose moments, where your leveled up hero can do too much if kept alive or leave your army helpless if killed and possibly provide a lot of experience to the killing player's heroes causing irreversible situations. The game becomes very dynamic but also very random and "snowbally". In other games with weaker heroes, those add unit variety and possibly some army enhancement, while causing distraction from other parts of the game in order to control and keep them alive. In the end it's all about a mix of personal preferance and striking the right balance with other game elements.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Prodigal Son

[Lion.Kanzen]

19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

These "small units" you're talking about were still hundreds of men. A proposed battalion is about 24 soldiers. Not aiming for a simulation, only an approximation. 

You said approximation. There are that game called Praetorians. is very simplistic in many ways. but you can split your forces and reinforces "cohorts"

[WhiteTreePaladin]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

These "small units" you're talking about were still hundreds of men. A proposed battalion is about 24 soldiers. Not aiming for a simulation, only an approximation. 

Exactly. I was thinking of around 5-10 units like BFME, but they could be larger.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

In general leveling units, much like battalions (or a combination of both), better fit in games with simpler economy because they usually require more individual micro.

That's true to a degree, although I found the "battalions" (5-10 units usually) to be very easy to manage in the BFME series.

[Prodigal Son]

41 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

That's true to a degree, although I found the "battalions" (5-10 units usually) to be very easy to manage in the BFME series.

True but BFME series have a very basic economy and rather simple (in the first one very simple) base building compared to 0 A.D. or AOE. That leaves you with plenty of time to manage it's relatively simple hero system, the battalion upgrades and the very simple combat tactics. On a point towards previous discussion, it's balance is pretty horrible, especially in the second game.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Prodigal Son

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

On a point towards previous discussion, it's balance is pretty horrible, especially in the second game.

I'd say it's biggest problem was the extremely overpowered heroes. I am sympathetic to your dislike of heroes in 0 A.D.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

True but BFME series have a very basic economy and rather simple (in the first one very simple) base building compared to 0 A.D. or AOE. That leaves you with plenty of time to manage it's relatively simple hero system, the battalion upgrades and the very simple combat tactics.

I would say including battalions in 0 A.D. with the econ as-is would already result in a net reduction in APM/management.

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd say it's biggest problem was the extremely overpowered heroes. I am sympathetic to your dislike of heroes in 0 A.D.

Yes, I agree. 0 A.D.'s heroes are highly unbalanced. Some have global auras which are much better than civilization and team bonuses combined, e.g. Viridomarus' +15% gather rates for all workers or Maximus' +2 armour levels for all humans and structures. Add to that they are cost-effective super soldiers with very high health and attack. It would be better if heroes were disabled in 0 A.D.

As for battalions, cohorts, etc. I'd rather have the system used in Cossacks. Units are trained individually and can be commanded individually. However, they can also be grouped together in fixed-number formations, ranging from c. 20 to 200 units each. Each formation acts as one unit and gives fighting bonuses, however, it does not regenerate, and individual units in a formation can be killed; there is also a button to absorb nearby units into the formation to restore its numbers. So, basically, have formations in addition to individual units, not instead of.

[Grugnas]

2 hours ago, Nescio said:

As for battalions, cohorts, etc. I'd rather have the system used in Cossacks. Units are trained individually and can be commanded individually. However, they can also be grouped together in fixed-number formations, ranging from c. 20 to 200 units each. Each formation acts as one unit and gives fighting bonuses, however, it does not regenerate, and individual units in a formation can be killed; there is also a button to absorb nearby units into the formation to restore its numbers. So, basically, have formations in addition to individual units, not instead of.

finally someone got the point.

Quote

Yes, I agree. 0 A.D.'s heroes are highly unbalanced. Some have global auras which are much better than civilization and team bonuses combined, e.g. Viridomarus' +15% gather rates for all workers or Maximus' +2 armour levels for all humans and structures. Add to that they are cost-effective super soldiers with very high health and attack. It would be better if heroes were disabled in 0 A.D.

Heroes aren't unbalanced at all. They try to incentivize a strategy over another with auras that may be considered as morale bonus for the nearby units(it may even be extended with a morale malus when a hero dies ). Sure, some hero auras are bad designed but it is just a matter of tweaks.

[MlemandPurrs]

The current problem with formations is the constant regrouping when issued an order. This can be solved if we followed the method in Celtic Kings, there will be an generic General(with randomly generated name each time,different per civ) unit that can be trained in the fort, units can be attached to a general in order to function as one formation. General acts as 'center' of the formation so less danger of stray units trying to catch up when moving, and himself is set to be the last unit to die like Sergeants of an squad in DoW2.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

A lot of the reasons for the regrouping is because of the pathfinder.  If it is reworked to accommodate formations, that would be the best solution.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
relevance

[Prodigal Son]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd say it's biggest problem was the extremely overpowered heroes. I am sympathetic to your dislike of heroes in 0 A.D.

Indeed for BFME series, though some other were underpowered, making things even worse. On 0 A.D. heroes I'm not sure for their removal but I mostly lean towards it. Besides balance issues, for me they limit historical immersion to a degree. I don't like to see, say, Leonidas available in every Spartan match-up in which I might want to simulate a completely unrelated conflict. 

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I would say including battalions in 0 A.D. with the econ as-is would already result in a net reduction in APM/management.

Depends on the battalion mechanics. If you have to manage facing, morale, charge/running, stamina, stance, skills or any combination of a good number of those for each battalion, I strongly disagree. A simple, fixed battalion system, essentialy just a single multi-actor entity per battalion, would certainly have that effect of reduced micro, but to me it would feel incomplete, while removing the single unit micro that is interesting to many people. Perhaps a Cossacks-like system as @Nescio suggested could work as well, it isn't that heavy-duty. Personally if going with battalions I'd prefer to simplify eco and go to total war levels of combat detail.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Prodigal Son

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Sadly there is currently no way for us to test and compare our two viewpoints. 

[causative]

Just a random thought:  Greek city states fought each other mostly over arable farmland.  We see fights over mines and trees in 0ad, but not farmland.  It would be interesting to have a mod or perhaps a map that disables the building of farms and corrals, and has gaia farms scattered all around the map that can be captured but not damaged.  A player's first CC could have only 3 gaia farms within its range.  So, there would be battles to claim more farms.

[Prodigal Son]

17 minutes ago, causative said:

Just a random thought:  Greek city states fought each other mostly over arable farmland.  We see fights over mines and trees in 0ad, but not farmland.  It would be interesting to have a mod or perhaps a map that disables the building of farms and corrals, and has gaia farms scattered all around the map that can be captured but not damaged.  A player's first CC could have only 3 gaia farms within its range.  So, there would be battles to claim more farms.

I think @wowgetoffyourcellphone's mod DE has a kinda similar system, you might want to check it.