Unit roles and balance

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 hours ago, Nescio said:

Yes, I fully agree. Part of the reason why swordsmen are better than spearmen is that the former inflicts hack damage, whereas the latter inflicts pierce damage, as do archers. A simpler melee/ranged/crush damage system might work better, or perhaps even only a single damage type (dead is dead). On the other hand, to have a meaningful counter system without hard bonus attacks one probably needs more than just three (effectively two) damage types. Unfortunately damage types are currently hard-coded. What is really needed is making adding, changing, or removing damage types at least as easy as modding resources is.

That is a poor example: in AoK a paladin could defeat a pikeman or heavy camel, their supposed counters, in single combat; massed crossbowmen could take out skirmishers; and an early swordsman rush could destroy a player.

More importantly, 0 A.D. shouldn't aim at being merely an AoK clone.

I can find more strategy counters charts. obviously this is a base of a scheme. we don't need follow as a sacred book. the Hannibal idea isn't bad we need define the roles.

The here is create a new formula. the basic are basic, AoK is based in a other timeline, Ao mythology is worst example.... Total War is almost different game but with same necessity of us.

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, av93 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Well, the individual unit roles have to be placed with a general design idea: we want they to be so fast created and killed? We want the buildings and defences that so resistant? We want this current citizen-soldier system that benefit turtle/booming?

But I agree, roles should be clearly stated to later tune them. The aim of both a soft or hard counter system it's that there's a diversity of choices, that there's no a leading one that invalidates all the other. Later, it comes that armies shouldn't be of 1-2 units only. Of course some units could be more situational than others..

Maybe now that we have a in-game encyclopedia, the roles could be written?

We need a volunteer.

[Alexandermb]

18 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I agree with both, the best is a counter system, and reduce combat speed in those case. Hannibal suggestion can be nice if only if reach a % of same type. and proportional with high pop setting.

Why reduce speed of damage, to make a some micro and planned better strategy. I prefer more AoE 2 or 1 attack speed dame even in counter less Moba or blizzard(competitive) and more Total war pacing. not too slow but not too faster as A15. speaking about counters.

Were need more features guys, the options to create a tactics still limited.

Could help too if the counter system is for unit type:

Spears > Cavalry
Swords > Spears
Axes > Swords
Archers > Axes
Javelin > Archers
Slingers > Javelin

Heavy > Light > Skirmishers > Heavy

(Size of shields)

Big Shields > Big defence, low rate attack, low speed, high HP
Med Shields > balance between defence and attack, regular move speed, regular HP
Small shields > Low defense, High attack rate, fast move speed, low HP

And maybe reduce the duration of heroes by reducing their life, they are like tanks with that HP and breaks immersion looking 12 units killing him taking some time, maybe reducing their hp but increasing their aura strenght and reducing the range, this way player could value more the life of the hero and use it more wisely and with captured hero mechanics maybe after died he won't died at all at the 1st time he could be capture and move it to the closest enemy civic center or frotress allowing to be rescued by capturing or destroying the building and if its killed 2 times permanently die whitout chance of train again.

[Nescio]

4 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:

And maybe reduce the duration of heroes by reducing their life, they are like tanks with that HP and breaks immersion looking 12 units killing him taking some time, maybe reducing their hp but increasing their aura strenght and reducing the range, this way player could value more the life of the hero and use it more wisely and with captured hero mechanics maybe after died he won't died at all at the 1st time he could be capture and move it to the closest enemy civic center or frotress allowing to be rescued by capturing or destroying the building and if its killed 2 times permanently die whitout chance of train again.

Or perhaps disable heroes by default. Catafalques are normally unavailable either. 0 A.D. doesn't have to resemble the DC universe.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The first isn't necessary. I mean sword vs axe hmmmmm nope.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[Alexandermb]

1 minute ago, Nescio said:

Or perhaps disable heroes by default. Catafalques are normally unavailable either. 0 A.D. doesn't have to resemble the DC universe.

Thanos is that you ? Perfectly balanced 0 A.D. i'm thinking more on Rise and Fall pc game but i see your point, AoE don't have heroes whitout campaing leaving the regicide mode only for heroes and choose your hero at the start of the game like Hyrule mod.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, Alexandermb said:

Thanos is that you ? Perfectly balanced 0 A.D. i'm thinking more on Rise and Fall pc game but i see your point, AoE don't have heroes whitout campaing leaving the regicide mode only for heroes and choose your hero at the start of the game like Hyrule mod.

Lol. you know how is this guy.  take some expression too much literally.

[av93]

3 hours ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Those lookers-on who merely type ideas on the forum but don't realize them should start showing that they can lend a helping hand in furthering the project.

 

I think there's nothing wrong in given some ideas, discussion or feedback if is a positive tone. Overdone discussions? sure.

Although I agree that some of us should try to contribute with active modding. Mod.io seems a easier way to share gameplay mods with a broader community, and then, a way to have a better vision.
 

 

6 hours ago, Nescio said:

Yes, I fully agree. Part of the reason why swordsmen are better than spearmen is that the former inflicts hack damage, whereas the latter inflicts pierce damage, as do archers. A simpler melee/ranged/crush damage system might work better, or perhaps even only a single damage type (dead is dead). On the other hand, to have a meaningful counter system without hard bonus attacks one probably needs more than just three (effectively two) damage types. Unfortunately damage types are currently hard-coded. What is really needed is making adding, changing, or removing damage types at least as easy as modding resources is.

 

Maybe unifing the damage could lead to an easier design, but probably would lead to hard-counters.

BTW, I thought that damage and armours were agnostic, like the resources.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@feneur we can split this to our own topic, this less generic and more complex discuss. and a trend discuss.

[feneur]

31 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

@feneur we can split this to our own topic, this less generic and more complex discuss. and a trend discuss.

If you give me a list of exactly what posts would go in there I guess I could, but maybe just start a new topic with any conclusions after the discussion is gotten to a point where you have a conclusion. This topic is messy as is, so it can just as well be used for the discussion =)

[Servo]

P1 cap the pop to say 75. Citizen soldiers (can be trained in CC only) with almost half the capability of barracks trained regular soldiers (trainable from barracks only) but with different costs. Regular barracks trained soldiers should have very low resource gathering (but more fighting skills) and building output to encourage some light skirmishes or raids(military). Make cavalries (trainable from stables only) more expensive. If necessary add metal cost on most male organic units. All same units must be costing in increments after another. Add commerce cap on all resources too (techs can be research to increase commerce cap) per phase and no cap on last phase. Markets with can be available in P 1 but must reorganize techs or trader cap from it not to be of too much abused. Temples (and healers available too) can be built too on P1. 

P2 at with maybe 150 pop cap. Commerce cap again on P2. New units(some special expensive units available if needed) and new buildings and techs. 

P3 with champion and sieges and heroes can’t be regenerated and with others saying must have no too OP. 

All range units trained must regenerate projectiles (at cost) and must inflict spread damage to any enemy or friendly units. All sieges weapons must be manned and are capturable but can be disbanded and regenerate some resources when disbanded.

All military structures can’t be built at border edges (esp fort and towers) and must have a minimum distance from behind the border. This would discourage the annoying towering of enemies especially that maps are too small. 

Cap of units and making a settings of expensive or very expensive units, structures and techs could be very helpful to minimize spamming. 

I might try hosting a very low and and slower speed (.75) tonight and see how things could go. 

[Hannibal_Barca]

1 hour ago, fatherbushido said:

Patches commited between April 1st and April 20th 2017 for a commit freeze July 16th 2017.

That's what I meant by last-minute, yes

 

1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:

And maybe reduce the duration of heroes by reducing their life, they are like tanks with that HP and breaks immersion

I've long clamoured for a one chance at same hero thing, it's needed

 

Limiting pop/phase is not really the right solution.. not justified and not fun

Let players calculate when to phase up to build strategic stuff

16 minutes ago, Servo said:

This would discourage the annoying towering of enemies especially that maps are too small. 

It's a strategy that should always be viable

[Lion.Kanzen]

From there.

@feneur

[feneur]

14 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

From there.

[...]

@feneur

 

Ok, done (Y)

[Imarok]

6 hours ago, Servo said:

While waiting for A23 to come out I got hooked on MP games. It’s quite fun playing with fun playing people but in the end spamming of units is the only strategy. From P1 until P3 the activity is the same just gather, build (as many structures as you can) and spam units. Then in a few minutes the game is over because either you are rolling over the opponent or the other way around. 

There are so many things suggested already like one Barca is suggesting (I suggested to do something on spamming too like RoN) but I think they want to stick to AoE or AoK thing. Some even say oh limiting on anything is not possible. With these unique ranged units firing unlimited amount of projectiles and easily spamming it with infinite number of structures producing units I won’t wonder anymore on my previous game when Chrstgr was rolling over me/us with an average of 100 skirmisher and a couple of rams. 

As Nescio said it’s nice that melee battle should be the main battle. The range units role are just not real. 

Later. 

It's not, that the team doesn't want any change, but there is nobody doing big gameplay changes and there are 100 different opinions how it should be done

[causative]

Heavy infantry includes citizen-soldier hoplites, and they were historically heavily armored enough that they could mostly shrug off projectiles of skirmishers, archers, and slingers.  Most damage to heavy infantry was dealt during a melee clash with the enemy heavy infantry.  Melee infantry should get a lot more pierce armor, and lower hack armor so they die quickly in melee but slowly to ranged.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, feneur said:

Ok, done (Y)

Thank you so much.

[Nescio]

8 hours ago, causative said:

Heavy infantry includes citizen-soldier hoplites, and they were historically heavily armored enough that they could mostly shrug off projectiles of skirmishers, archers, and slingers.  Most damage to heavy infantry was dealt during a melee clash with the enemy heavy infantry.  Melee infantry should get a lot more pierce armor, and lower hack armor so they die quickly in melee but slowly to ranged.

Hoplites could hold their own in almost any fight and certainly did not die quickly in melee.

[Nescio]

Anyway, how important is preserving the status quo, an outdated design document, or modern conventions? And how important is historical accuracy in 0 A.D.?

Take, for instance, the pikeman. In 0 A.D. it is an extremely heavy armoured unit with a 3.0× bonus attack vs cavalry. Because a pike requires two hands to handle, their shields were attached to their left arm or shoulders; those were rimless (thus less effective against hacking attacks), much lighter than the heavy hoplite aspis (thus easier to pierce with a heavy thrusting spear), and not as large as the Roman tower shields (thus protecting a smaller surface against sling stones and bullets). Furthermore, pikemen did not need cuirasses (or other, heavy, metal body armour), because they were out of reach of ordinary melee weapons. Historically pikemen were thus actually lighter armoured than other types of Greek (and Italic) heavy (melee) infantry, in contrast to 0 A.D.'s.

Contrary to popular conventions, pikes were *not* anti-cavalry weapons. It was primarily a defensive weapon, designed to keep enemies at a distance: the sarissa (pike) was twice as long as the dory (spear) and easily outranged all other melee weapons. As long as they stayed in a closely packed formation, pikemen were practically invulnerable to frontal attacks. They could serve to push back an enemy formation (e.g. Roman swordsmen) or pinpoint opponents on a certain location. However, pike formation had to move slowly to stay together; if they moved too quickly, the formation would break, and the pikemen would become vulnerable to attacks; chasing cavalry was not an option. Because of the compactness of their tightly packed formation formation and the unwieldy length of their weapons, pikemen were unable to turn around rapidly. The easiest way to defeat a pike formation was to outflank it and massacre them by an attack from the rear. Cavalry was especially effective at this. Pikemen were therefore accompanied by light infantry and cavalry to protect them against enemy cavalry. So rather than making cavalry vulnerable to pikeman, as in 0 A.D., it should actually be the other way around

Edited May 9, 2018 by Nescio

[Hannibal_Barca]

Differentiation of unit/formation rear and flank from front isn't in yet although some have come up with rudimentary patches

While the pikeman as it is might be a little incorrect, making cavalry counter/do well against pikes seems not an option

Ranged units do need a rework though

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Hoplites could hold their own in almost any fight and certainly did not die quickly in melee.

Just playing  , forgive me, I know you're right  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

34 minutes ago, Nescio said:

 Contrary to popular conventions, pikes were *not* anti-cavalry weapons. It was primarily a defensive weapon, designed to keep enemies at a distance: the sarissa (pike) was twice as long as the dory (spear) and easily outranged all other melee weapons. As long as they stayed in a closely packed formation, pikemen were practically invulnerable to frontal attacks. They could serve to push back an enemy formation (e.g. Roman swordsmen) or pinpoint opponents on a certain location. However, pike formation had to move slowly to stay together; if they moved too quickly, the formation would break, and the pikemen would become vulnerable to attacks; chasing cavalry was not an option. Because of the compactness of their tightly packed formation formation and the unwieldy length of their weapons, pikemen were unable to turn around rapidly. The easiest way to defeat a pike formation was to outflank it and massacre them by an attack from the rear. Cavalry was especially effective at this. Pikemen were therefore accompanied by light infantry and cavalry to protect them against enemy cavalry. So rather than making cavalry vulnerable to pikeman, as in 0 A.D., it should actually be the other way around

The game (or just the game engine so mods can do it) needs to support battalions to make this kind of combat realism possible.

[Nescio]

26 minutes ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

While the pikeman as it is might be a little incorrect, making cavalry counter/do well against pikes seems not an option

Why not?

9 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Just playing  , forgive me, I know you're right  

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The game (or just the game engine so mods can do it) needs to support battalions to make this kind of combat realism possible.

Having formations behave differently from individual units (perhaps as is done in Cossacks) would be a great improvement, yes, but even without we could have a look at actual history for inspiration of unit roles.

[Stan`]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The game (or just the game engine so mods can do it) needs to support battalions to make this kind of combat realism possible.

Starting to repeat yourself ... but yeah that'd be a great feature. Especially if we could add banner holders and other special units.

But even if it's like the settlers 5 where there is a captain and X soldiers where X is 4 or 8 depending on the upgrade level.

 

 

[av93]

There has been some work on formations lately, right? 

What is the official plan, to add or not to add "battalions"?