Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ranged units are currently designed in an ahistorical manner, encouraging players to field forces that are almost entirely ranged.  In part, this is due to a number of issues.

1.  Ranged units are accurate and typically faster than their melee counterparts, encouraging players to kite with them.  This makes players micro their ranged units much like in starcraft.  Since 0 A.D. does not wish to have this kind of gameplay, this should be addressed.  

2.  The proportion of ranged to melee units is historically inaccurate to my understanding.  While I think that there should be the possibility of using skirmishing armies, these should have a proper place in the game based on historically informed unit compositions.  Here is a general analysis of army compositions during 0 A.D.’s timeframe. 

An article from wikipedia argues that Alexander the Great used 31,000 heavy infantry, 9,000 light infantry (ranged), and 7,000 cavalry in the battle of Gaugamela .  

The opposing Persian side had only 1,500 archers in an army that numbered between 52,000 and 120,000.  

These statistics are not extremely unusual, but they would be in the case of 0 A.D.  Here are a few suggestions to address these problems.   

1.  Ranged units should be much more inaccurate, having the ability to hit targets they did not aim for, making it also possible to have friendly fire.  In most cases with at least firearms, it has been common for soldiers to not even aim at a specific target in battle situations.  Assuming that this was also the case before gunpowder, the game should attempt to emulate this.  Missile trajectories should arc more, and accuracy should dramatically fall off as the distance increases between them and their targets.  Highly experienced and champion units could perhaps do better, but these things should at least affect them in part.


2.  Most heavy units, especially those with shields, which do a fantastic job of deflecting things like arrows, should be much more resistant to ranged attacks than they currently are.  If directional armour is introduced, I think that the idea of them taking more damage from flanking missile attacks would be a nice option, yet for the most part, shields should play a much larger role in calculating defence against ranged attacks.  

These are just a few options for addressing what I find to be a problem, and I'd be open to suggestions.


 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Thorfinn. Total War struggles with the issue, but it is one of the finest battle simulators ever created... 0AD would do good to attempt battle mechanics more akin to the Total War series (battalions & directional stuff). Not a blanket copy, but a simplified arcade version (Total War Arena-ish). It might be challenging, but considering the many thousands of units in TW-games as opposed to the few hundred in 0AD, it might end up being "easier" to implement in 0AD. It would also help 0AD move away from the AoE/starcraft type microing of individual units, into microing platoons, battalions and armies, at least for most combat.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I agree with Thorfinn. Total War struggles with the issue, but it is one of the finest battle simulators ever created... 0AD would do good to attempt battle mechanics more akin to the Total War series (battalions & directional stuff). Not a blanket copy, but a simplified arcade version (Total War Arena-ish). It might be challenging, but considering the many thousands of units in TW-games as opposed to the few hundred in 0AD, it might end up being "easier" to implement in 0AD. It would also help 0AD move away from the AoE/starcraft type microing of individual units, into microing platoons, battalions and armies, at least for most combat. 

Why not. Battle formations, tactical depth, moral management etc. could bring a lot of things to the game but this is a very huge work and a complex design to think about. It joins my remark in the other thread:

14 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I think there are two extremely opposed examples of successful RTS: AoE with numerous clone factions, Starcraft with only three factions but with huge difference and depth. 

0 A.D is clearly between both, but we must ask ourselves the question of which side it is heading.

It would be really innovative but we should ask to the technical heroes of the game how much it is difficult this kind of things.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

1.  Ranged units should be much more inaccurate, having the ability to hit targets they did not aim for, making it also possible to have friendly fire.  In most cases with at least firearms, it has been common for soldiers to not even aim at a specific target in battle situations.  Assuming that this was also the case before gunpowder, the game should attempt to emulate this.  Missile trajectories should arc more, and accuracy should dramatically fall off as the distance increases between them and their targets.  Highly experienced and champion units could perhaps do better, but these things should at least affect them in part.

I personally think that it would be really hard to play a 0ad game if you have to pay attention also to the friendly fire of your own units. This shold be supplemented mostly for siege weapons, like catapults or bolt shooters. Maybe a friendly fire idea for ranged unit should be implemented only between the ranged units of the same team (for exampe your ally can fail a shot). Friendly fire between your own units would be a total chaos

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

2.  The proportion of ranged to melee units is historically inaccurate to my understanding.  While I think that there should be the possibility of using skirmishing armies, these should have a proper place in the game based on historically informed unit compositions.  Here is a general analysis of army compositions during 0 A.D.’s timeframe. 

An article from wikipedia argues that Alexander the Great used 31,000 heavy infantry, 9,000 light infantry (ranged), and 7,000 cavalry in the battle of Gaugamela .  

The opposing Persian side had only 1,500 archers in an army that numbered between 52,000 and 120,000.  

These statistics are not extremely unusual

Interesting; I'm especially curious as to where that number of "only 1,500 archers" comes from. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela#Size_of_Persian_army "the main weapon of the Achaemenid army historically was the bow and arrow, and javelin." And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparabara "nine rows of archers would be protected by one row of shield-bearers." However, we all know Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

The most important of Alexander's biographers is Arrian. Gaugamela is described in book III. He also provides numbers for the Persian army:

Quote

ἐλέγετο δὲ ἡ πᾶσα στρατιὰ ἡ Δαρείου ἱππεῖς μὲν ἐς τετρακισμυρίους, πεζοὶ δὲ ἐς ἑκατὸν μυριάδας, καὶ ἅρματα δρεπανηφόρα διακόσια, ἐλέφαντες δὲ οὐ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ ἐς πεντεκαίδεκα μάλιστα Ἰνδοῖς τοῖς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ ἦσαν.

The number of Darius’ forces was said to be 40,000 horse, 1,000,000 foot, 200 chariots carrying scythes, and a few elephants; the Indians on this side of the Indus had some fifteen.

—Arrian Anabasis III.8 (Translated by P. A. Brunt 1976)

Arrian doesn't break the numbers down into heavy (melee) and light (ranged). And yes, Arrian wrote five centuries post factum and modern scholarship tend to view his round numbers as exaggarations and poetic licence.

An example of a battle where the light troops are listed separately from heavy infantry is Herodotus' description of the Greek army at Plataea:

Quote

29. Οὗτοι, πλὴν τῶν ἑπτὰ περὶ ἕκαστον τεταγμένων Σπαρτιήτῃσι, ἦσαν ὁπλῖται, σύμπαντες ἐόντες ἀριθμὸν τρεῖς τε μυριάδες καὶ ὀκτὼ χιλιάδες καὶ ἑκατοντάδες ἑπτά. ὁπλῖται μὲν οἱ πάντες συλλεγέντες ἐπὶ τὸν βάρβαρον ἦσαν τοσοῦτοι, ψιλῶν δὲ πλῆθος ἦν τόδε, τῆς μὲν Σπαρτιητικῆς τάξιος πεντακισχίλιοι καὶ τρισμύριοι ἄνδρες, ὡς ἐόντων ἑπτὰ περὶ ἕκαστον ἄνδρα, καὶ τούτων πᾶς τις παρήρτητο ὡς ἐς πόλεμον· οἱ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ Ἑλλήνων ψιλοί, ὡς εἷς περὶ ἕκαστον ἐὼν ἄνδρα, πεντακόσιοι καὶ τετρακισχίλιοι καὶ τρισμύριοι ἦσαν.

29. All these, save the seven appointed to attend each Spartan, were men-at-arms, and the whole sum of them was thirty-eight thousand and seven hundred. This was the number of men-at-arms that mustered for war against the foreigner; as regarding the number of the light-armed men, there were in the Spartan array seven for each man-at-arms, that is, thirty-five thousand, and every one of these was equipped for war; the light-armed from the rest of Lacedaemon and Hellas were as one to every man-at-arms, and their number was thirty-four thousand and five hundred.

30. Ψιλῶν μὲν δὴ τῶν ἁπάντων τῶν μαχίμων ἦν τὸ πλῆθος ἕξ τε μυριάδες καὶ ἐννέα χιλιάδες καὶ ἑκατοντάδες πέντε, τοῦ δὲ σύμπαντος τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ τοῦ συνελθόντος ἐς Πλαταιὰς σύν τε ὁπλίτῃσι καὶ ψιλοῖσι τοῖσι μαχίμοισι ἕνδεκα μυριάδες ἦσαν, μιῆς χιλιάδος, πρὸς δὲ ὀκτακοσίων ἀνδρῶν καταδέουσαι. σὺν δὲ Θεσπιέων τοῖσι παρεοῦσι ἐξεπληροῦντο αἱ ἕνδεκα μυριάδες· παρῆσαν γὰρ καὶ Θεσπιέων ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ οἱ περιεόντες, ἀριθμὸν ἐς ὀκτακοσίους καὶ χιλίους· ὅπλα δὲ οὐδ᾿ οὗτοι εἶχον. οὗτοι μέν νυν ταχθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ Ἀσωπῷ ἐστρατοπεδεύοντο.

30. So the sum of all the light-armed men that were fighters was sixty-nine thousand and five hundred, and of the whole Greek army mustered at Plataeae, men-at-arms and light-armed fighting men together, eleven times ten thousand, lacking eighteen hundred. But the Thespians who were there present made up the full tale of an hundred and ten thousand; for the survivors of the Thespians were also present with the army, eighteen hundred in number. These then were arrayed, and encamped by the Asopus.

—Herodotus IX.29-30 (Translated by A. D. Godley 1925)

There were seven helots per Spartan; the Greek army as a whole had about twice as many light troops as hoplites (69500:38700). Perhaps the army was somewhat smaller than the numbers given by Herodotus, but there is no real reason to doubt his troop ratios.

Anyway, "a general analysis of army compositions" based on a single number from Wikipedia does not exactly convince me. Nor does calling it "not extremely unusual" help.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Genava55 Generally the Total War style of combat, minus morale has been the goal at the very outset of the game to my understanding.  

 

@NescioFair enough.  I didn't expect it to convince you.  The archer estimate was interestingly enough not cited, but since it was listed under a chart depicting modern estimates of the Persian army's size, it seems to be a combination of synthesising Arrian and a number of modern sources such as Delbrück.  Your guess is as good if not better than mine as to whether that is a fair idea.  What I will say is that the Persian army was of course a multiethnic conglomerate of peoples and that even if the Sparabara formation was that way, that might be difficult to generalise for the entirety of the force (Not that you are.).  

The number of helots to Spartans is no surprise given the number of helots that populated Sparta in general.  

 All that said, it's rather difficult to find exhaustive comparisons, and certainly there would be artefacts.  Whether the statistics support my presuppositions or another's is hard to say.  What I would point out is that regardless of the ratios, ranged units still play the decisive role in the game, and although there were definite cases of battles in which light soldiers played an important part such as the Battle of Sphateria, the majority of fights seem to have been won by melee combat generally speaking.  Granted, I mainly am considering this from a Western perspective, yet then again that is the primary focus of the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

What I would point out is that regardless of the ratios, ranged units still play the decisive role in the game, and although there were definite cases of battles in which light soldiers played an important part such as the Battle of Sphateria, the majority of fights seem to have been won by melee combat generally speaking.

I think a majority of 0AD battles are also won by melee combatants. I wouldn't square an all-ranged army against a ranged/pikemen mix and expect to defeat a player with equal skill. Most players, however, will likely agree that ranged units need some balancing work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make a certain claim (e.g. "the proportion of ranged to melee units is historically inaccurate") you should be able to back it up with reliable sources.

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The archer estimate was interestingly enough not cited

If you can't verify something, then don't quote it.

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

modern sources such as Delbrück.

Secondary literature has to base itself directly or indirectly on primary sources. If they somehow give a different number, then read it carefully to figure out their argumentation for their interpretation.

Also, Hans Delbrück died in 1921; his views might be outdated. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in using 19th or 20th C sources, however, if you do, always back them up with more recent publications.

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Whether the statistics support my presuppositions or another's is hard to say.

If neither can be proven, then don't suppose anything.

In the battle of Lechaeum, as descibed in Xenophon Hellenica 4.5.11-18, an Athenian peltast force defeated a Spartan hoplite regiment, killing about 250 out of 600 with their javelins.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nescio While I more or less agree with your way of validating historical sources, I think that for the most part they show a preference of melee over ranged combat in the target era (so overall I have to agree with @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded). At least for the majority of the included civs in game and generally most of those around the Mediterranean. Even the Persians probably reduced their reliance on archery over time, in favor of cavalry and mercenary infantry.

Ranged troops would more often that not be used in fewer numbers than melee infantry and not as the main battle line. There are exceptions that show dominance of missile troops, but most of those are in skirmishes and not large, pitched battles. Unsupported heavy infantry would slowly be decimated by superior numbers of missile troops (easier by peltasts etc, not so easy by archers with their lighter missiles) but normally not when they are supported by faster units and not outnumbered.

For those reasons, I don't find mass ranged warfare is that realistic in game terms, at least not as the norm.

There's also the availability of various types of troops to be taken into account, at least in the way I tend to balance my creations. Ranged infantry units are made cheap, with lower damage than melee ones, but the more effective they are the longer they take to train (often with reduced time bonuses, say for Persians or Mauryans). Slingers and Archers have the benefit of long range, but usually lower attack/HP and quite long train times (cheap weapons, hard to master), while Javelinists train faster and have often higher damage (and Hp when protected or drilled). On balancing mostly through accuracy, I'm not so much in favor but that's another discussion.

Edited by Prodigal Son
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 3:29 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

1.  Ranged units should be much more inaccurate, having the ability to hit targets they did not aim for

Yes, I agree. Ranged units are always accurate and the arrows are super fast. It would be nice to see the arrows flying and coming from the top.

 

On 10/13/2018 at 3:29 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The proportion of ranged to melee units is historically inaccurate to my understanding.

You can not generalize that. First of all it depends on the civilization you play. Not all civilizations have archers and even fewer have archers as champion units. Most of the African and Asian factions have good archers. So, basically it is a cultural thing if a civilization made use of archers. All faction went through a research phase, which means somebody looked at units to include, that is the reason why some have archers and others do not have them.

Second, there is always a certain military fashion. Sometimes soldiers with long spear and shield where in fashion. Other times heavy cavalry or soldiers with short spears where in fashion. However, the fashion lasted until somebody found a new and better approach. For example, the phalanx Alexander used came out of fashion after him, but was again the thing in the late middle ages and renaissance.

Third, you mentioned Alexander and Darius III. Both of them had a military background and experiences with a certain fight style. Alexander used the soldiers he had to his advantage. However, the key part in the Battle of Gaugamela was Alexander's tactic and the use of cavalry. Also, the fact that he himself was leading the army gave his soldiers a moral boots. With other words sometimes the tactic and psychology is the key to winning a battle. Sometimes, the circumstances play a more important role.

If you play against somebody who uses a lot of archers, then use armored cavalry to kill his archers. Every unit has a weakness, every player has a certain style on the battlefield and every player has experiences from the past.

In conclusion, using archers or not depends on player, civilization and a particular game. So, if please review your comment and describe in more detail on which map you played and which civilizations played against each other, to get a better understanding of your exact problem. In addition, it would help to answer the question why you feel that archers are to dominant in 0 A.D.?

Edited by balduin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his point is that in many competitive games particular ranged units provide the platform to victory. The Britons' slinger and the Ptolemaic camels in particular come to mind, seemingly being overused, if you look at their historical roles. Both were historically support units, to my understanding, while they are currently used as the primary unit. For the Ptolemaic faction, and most if not all of the successor states as well as Macedon, the primary unit should be some kind of phalangite. For the Britons, from a historical perspective it should be shock troops like noble swordsmen and chariots or something. Of course the player should always be free to compose the army as they see fit, but the gameplay should be tailored around historical unit roles, and when it favors support units instead, there might be an issue in the mechanics somewhere. It's not an easy fix because it's one of those balance things which causes eternal discussions each alpha again, although this alpha it seems to have calmed down a bit. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think capping is a good idea (atleast the former). Having artficial restriction has never interested me. Players should be free to do whatever they like. They should just be incentivized to focus more on melee units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@(-_-) Yeah, I was just typing something along those lines myself. I assume melee units were used so much because they were advantageous, if they're not used that much in the game then I guess they're not that advantageous. I wouldn't be happy if I was forced to use melee units if I don't want to.

 

Also I don't know what a cap per phase would accomplish for the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some tactical elements for archers in the roman army:

http://jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/article/viewFile/132/111

"The archers have an important role in the beginning of the battle trying to demoralize and disorganize the enemy by causing  great loses from afar. Their  purpose in the beginning of the battle is to create gaps in the enemy’s attack line and, if possible, to eliminate as many components of the adversary’s commands. Thus,  in case of an attack by heavy infantry or heavy cavalry the loses were minimized for their own side and the enemy would become more vulnerable."

 

Peltasts and Javelineers in Classical Greek Warfare: Roles, Tactics, and Fighting Methods.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/wright1334275977/inline

"In the notable battles at Spartolos, Olpai, Sphakteria , Amphipolis, and Aitolia, light - armed soldiers were undeniably decisive and proved their effectiveness with hit - and - run tactics (evading counterattacks), advantageous use of rugged terrain against slower opposition, and even as fighters within the main battle line (mixed with hoplites). The general Demosthenes emerged as an innovative leader of light - armed troops, and he seems to be the earliest Greek commander to seek proactively the various ways in which seasoned javelineers and peltasts could be put to use. By the end of the war, peltasts and javelineers seemed to be viewed as essential components of any Greek military operation, both within and outside of Greece proper. [...] The peltast and javelineer gained a more prominent position within Greek warfare through both the effective execution of new tactics and the improvement of their traditional roles. In Thucydides and Xenophon we see the full range of actions associated with these old and new roles : skirmishing, flanking and protecting of flanks, ambushing hoplites and mixed forces, guarding passes, seizing and defending high ground, raiding, storming positions, charging among or at the head of hoplites, pursuing an enemy in flight, and more. When serving under capable, specialized commanders such as Iphikrates, peltasts in particular became the period’s light troops par excellence and established themselves as an exceptionally formidable and versatile infantry arm. "

 

Missile troops have clearly a role of disruption of the enemy's formations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few clarifications: 

When referring to the proportion of ranged units to melee units, this was in highly general terms.  What I would consider broadly inaccurate was the point that one of the most effectual tactics in the game currently is to field forces of primarily ranged units and only a few if any melee units as meatshields.  I did not say that armies of this kind did not exist and were not capable of being used to devastating effect, but the instances seem rare.  In fact, I even pointed towards the Battle of Sphacteria, a textbook example of the capabilities of peltasts.  

When citing the statistic from wikipedia, I was and am aware of the website's reliability or lack thereof and mainly wished to provide a small example, and my noting that it was from wikipedia was mainly to be used as a disclaimer.  In hindsight, I could have pointed out the soldiers present on the Sicilian Expedition listed by Thucydides in Book VI, but the fact of the matter is that it is only one statistic and would do little to decisively prove one point, just as noting exceptions to a general rule does not disprove it.  My intention is to provide definitive evidence for a generalisation, that's a lot of work.

As a final point, the reasons for the changes I have proposed are primarily to make ranged units function as they seem to have been in most forms of ancient warfare: support of melee infantry units.  In some cases of military traditions, I think that it is within reason to make them less affected by these aspects, but broadly speaking, these would affect all ranged units to some degree.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sundiata said:

The Britons' slinger and the Ptolemaic camels in particular come to mind, seemingly being overused, if you look at their historical roles. Both were historically support units, to my understanding, while they are currently used as the primary unit. For the Ptolemaic faction, and most if not all of the successor states as well as Macedon, the primary unit should be some kind of phalangite. For the Britons, from a historical perspective it should be shock troops like noble swordsmen and chariots or something.

Then maybe the Ptolemaic camels and Britons' slinger are too cheap or their range is too long and should re-balanced.

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded it would really help if you could describe your problem with the ranged units with more context and details in regards to the game. I am interested in an answer to the following questions:

  • What did you play? Single player or competitive online multiplayer?
  • What civilization did you play?
  • What civilization(s) did your opposing player(s)  play?
  • On what map did you play?
  • What ranged units did your opposing player(s) use?
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not based on one single game, although I have experienced the abuse of ranged units.  Primarily, the issue is design related.  With ranged units due to high accuracy, it is easy to reach a critical mass in which they can one-shot melee units.  This makes it generally cost-effective to employ this kind of strategy even against units that are designed to counter them.  Most of my experience seeing the impact of this issue comes from observing pro-games of Age of Kings, yet the principle still stands.  Mainly this is can only be effectively done by a player that uses careful micro; when it is done, however, the impact is quite profound.  As long as ranged units have a highly consistent accuracy at a long distance, this will persist, but if there is more randomness while still allowing the ranged units to deal some damage to any unit the stray projectile lands on. 

On the second point, heavy units should be able to shrug off arrow fire quite easily while javelins could get through a slight bit easier.  

These two should combine to make ranged units helpful yet not necessarily independent units that can help to soften up forces while the melee units do the majority of the work.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, balduin said:

Then maybe the Ptolemaic camels and Britons' slinger are too cheap or their range is too long and should re-balanced.

@Thorfinn the Shallow Minded it would really help if you could describe your problem with the ranged units with more context and details in regards to the game. I am interested in an answer to the following questions:

  • What did you play? Single player or competitive online multiplayer?
  • What civilization did you play?
  • What civilization(s) did your opposing player(s)  play?
  • On what map did you play?
  • What ranged units did your opposing player(s) use?

He is one our historian expert (one of those  are still active) he is more concerned about  the predominance of projectile units over infantry melee , a undesirable effect probably by bad balance happen in mostly online games. is very unhistorical and effects accuracy. is very weird see armies composed with little melee units...

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranged units in almost every RTS game suffers from runaway Lanchester’s law. I have seen an AoE2 game where someone massed skirmishers and beat a sizable heavy cav army (cavaliers).

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Ranged units in almost every RTS game suffers from runaway Lanchester’s law. I have seen an AoE2 game where someone massed skirmishers and beat a sizable heavy cav army (cavaliers).

Yes, I remember doing that too (skirmishers didn't cost any gold) years ago, as well as massacring paladins with my longbowmen (very high range) and destroying rams and trebuchets with my Mongol horse archers (high fire rate). AoK had a fixed population limit of 75, but TC allowed a population limits from 25 to 200 (most people preferred playing 200), which basically destroyed balance. Cavalry defeats ranged units 1 vs 1, but when it's 40 vs 40 or 120 vs 120 a skillful player could use ranged units to destroy cavalry with minimal losses.

However, I don't consider it an "abuse of ranged units." People who elect to favour such tactics have to sacrifice other things. Besides, massed ranged units are great at defeating human soldiers, yes, but rather poor at attacking fortifications. And would a pure archer force always defeat a mixed force of light troops, heavy infantry, and ballistas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, "I figured out the problem", lol :P 

It's not ranged units that's the real problem. It's actually the melee units themselves that are the problem! They don't have a directional defense, nor can they make use of shield walls. 

Many ancient armies fought in formations, especially heavy melee infantry formations were usually the core units in pitched battles. Because they often carry shields, they weren't as susceptible to missile fire as they seem in current games like 0AD. 

Let's face it, shields are purely cosmetic in 0AD, and as long as directional attacks and directional defence aren't developed, we're always going to run circles in this ranged vs melee discussion.

An infantry unit (with shield) being attacked from the front by archers should be able to stand his own very well. But should be very susceptible to ranged attacks from the sides or from the back. This implies real tactics, not dancing units!

Currently phalangites for example fight out of formation more than 90% of the time, and considering formations are broke, putting them into formation is a recipe for disaster. I don't need to stress how ridiculous this is.. Melee infantry will never properly come into their own until formations and battalions (and their implied benefits) are fixed and implemented, as well as directionality of attack and defence. 

I think it's frustrating that there are people who think dancing units are just fine, and there are people that think lack of battalion systems and decent formations isn't an important issue, especially with regard to these kind of discussions.

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...