Ranged Units

[Alexandermb]

All ranged weapon reloadable units should have a cd between shots, also separate animations and functions (Shot > Ammo > Reloading) and make the firing up to sky instead of directly to units, at least for batallions, single units should stay as they are firing directly. 

Why (Shot > Ammo > Reloading) because i've made the chu-ko-nu (chinese repeating crossbow) animations and as the name suggest it shot a round of bolts before reloading, and game only manages 1 shot per animation frame and inmediatly goes to reloading function

In case ranged units wants to be limited, someone could make a mod making the ranged classes limited per conditions ie; 100 Archers per Archery Range, or 100 Archers per General/Officer

[Lion.Kanzen]

13 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Yt

Critical hit is interesting,

[balduin]

21 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

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

@Lion.Kanzen Thanks for clarifying that. I mean he has a point.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@balduin no probleml

 

------------------―------------------------

 

[wackyserious]

Quote

a Majra or Nawak is one of the overdraw devices in archery. (the other one is a siper) Using short arrows avoiding the enemy to shoot the arrows back. A Majra was also used to shoot the short bolts of a crossbow back

I just wanted to share this interesting video here.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

I was just thinking about the issue of ranged units being OP (except infantry archers of course, lol) the other night.  The problem, as in other RTS games, is that each ranged units is constantly hitting a target whereas melee units have to reach the target first.   However, as noted, a mixed army with a strong majority of ranged units will typically defeat an all ranged army.

The idea I had to make the game work more favorably for melee units was to decrease accuracy of ranged units based on obstructions.  This would mean that other units or buildings in the line of fire (but which are not the target) would cause a big penalty to the firing unit's accuracy.  This obstruction accuracy penalty would not happen or be less extreme based on the elevation the unit is firing from.  The higher the elevation the lower the penalty.  Of course, I'm not a programmer...I don't know how implementable this would be.

If the above were implemented, I predict that:

Majority Ranged Army defeats All ranged Army

Majority Melee Army defeats Majority Ranged Army (unless the Majority Ranged Army has strategic positioning/maneuvers for direct lines of fire to the enemy)

Majority Melee Army defeats All Melee Army (because the Majority Melee Army would do damage before the melee starts)

All Ranged Army vs All Melee Army... If the All Ranged army gets a surround they eat the All Melee, but not as bad as they do currently.

 

On 10/17/2018 at 4:12 AM, Sundiata said:

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

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. 

If shield directionality boosted defense vs ranged units and formations gave advantages specific to the formation, I would be happy with that solution.  There's already a defense boost for any formation the Athenian hero is in.

 

 

[Servo]

It’s nice to use range units on most if not any RTS games but their capabilities to use infinite projectiles is the worst case the game is designed to. Except Sudden Strike I have never known any RTS game using such mechanics. Modify their mechanics and the game can have more options. 

Range warfare is the biggest transition that ever happen to humanity up to now. So it’s really hard to just give them little consideration. They should play a major role to games like 0ad. But they have to have more limitations with regards to accuracy, against formations and close combats and more importantly the number of projectiles they carry! The excuse like having to reduce micro on these units are just nonsense. How can these units carry tons of projectiles?!

 

[Guest]

I think the justification for not being hyper-realistic is the fact that all RTS games are generalised and scaled down in controlling your empire. That being said, personally, I like a hyper-realistic game. Even to the point of natural population growth.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Guest

[Imperator Ferrum Princeps I]

2 hours ago, Servo said:

It’s nice to use range units on most if not any RTS games but their capabilities to use infinite projectiles is the worst case the game is designed to. Except Sudden Strike I have never known any RTS game using such mechanics. Modify their mechanics and the game can have more options. 

Range warfare is the biggest transition that ever happen to humanity up to now. So it’s really hard to just give them little consideration. They should play a major role to games like 0ad. But they have to have more limitations with regards to accuracy, against formations and close combats and more importantly the number of projectiles they carry! The excuse like having to reduce micro on these units are just nonsense. How can these units carry tons of projectiles?!

 

I would at least like to see a hyper realism mod that adds these total wars style mechanics in, along with friendly fire and morale.

 

[Sundiata]

16 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Even to the point of natural population growth.

A naturally growing civilian NPC population, from which you recruit military units that you can control directly would be so cool...

[Stan`]

38 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

A naturally growing civilian NPC population, from which you recruit military units that you can control directly would be so cool...

Sort of like the settlers 5 ^^

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, stanislas69 said:

Sort of like the settlers 5 ^^

The Settlers III was the first RTS I played, and I loved it so much... No hard pop-cap. Actual and logical supply chains, simple enough to understand, complicated enough to stay interesting and immersive. All goods would be visibly transported to storage yards, or to whatever structure that needed them. It was all interconnected.. It was so much fun to watch those chubby little dudes go about their business, but when it came to military, however simple, you had full control. I only remember playing a demo for Settlers V, and thought it was interesting. At least the military was a little more fleshed out.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Sundiata

[Rolf Dew]

Settlers V military (squads with captains) was great! 0 ad would benefit from that kind of recruitment in my opinion, even if it is just a mod.

[Stan`]

Yeah it would be bataillons.

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

At least the military was a little more fleshed out.

Praetorians and Ancestor Legacy are not bad too for battle formation and tactics.

[Sundiata]

47 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Ancestor Legacy

That game is so pretty... Their squad based system has interesting elements definitely applicable to 0AD. Something in between that and TW is my dream for 0AD combat. 

Spoiler

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

That game is so pretty... Their squad based system has interesting elements definitely applicable to 0AD. Something in between that and TW is my dream for 0AD combat. 

  Hide contents

 

 

I will try soon.

[FeXoR]

(Just thought about "hyper realism" - which doesn't make much sense to me as a word in the first place as long as we are not living in a matrix - and are not really opposed just: Wouldn't players be a bit ... put off when they have to e.g. film themselves to convince their units to join their cause and in 90% of the cases as a result they would just be ignored or even lynched? Not to speak of the declining player numbers ;p)

Less accuracy, moral/fatigue or "no focussed fire" fits well to combat in battalions.

But as is (without battalions) the result of making ranged units less strong in this many aspects would likely result in no ranged infantry being build at all (except siege). For ranged cavalry it's the combination of range and speed that makes them so versatile (Would making them more expensive help?). Friendly fire is also hard to manage for the player resulting in just another kind of micromanagement.

Not sure.

(Focussed fire could be avoided by instead of dealing damage units have a chance of killing en enemy they hit (so basically no health but death resistance lowering the chance to be killed) but the outcome of early skirmishes would be basically random)

[Philip the Swaggerless]

If the interesting options discussed in this thread are too hard to implement, ranged units could crudely be nerfed by just increasing their production time, reducing their accuracy, or reducing their general dps.  If historically a civilization was known to fielding a particular ranged unit as the majority of their army maybe that civilization alone can have a in bonus production speed, accuracy, or general dps for that unit.

[Servo]

Imo make it more realistic  and it will be easier and more interesting.  

Arrows and javelins need be limited on each unit and perhaps require another structure to make the projectiles. When near the base they can easily be resupplied. Or if there’s is a major assault then supply wagons must be needed. Same as catapults. They can’t have infinite projectiles! Too much complaints of units or Civs OP but what makes them OP is the bad unrealistic mechanics. No friendly damage and infinite projectiles mess the game up. 

Melee fight should be the main battle as that was what happened then. 

I think the hardest problem here is how to make the AI for this. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, Servo said:

Imo make it more realistic  and it will be easier and more interesting.  

Arrows and javelins need be limited on each unit and perhaps require another structure to make the projectiles. When near the base they can easily be resupplied. Or if there’s is a major assault then supply wagons must be needed. Same as catapults. They can’t have infinite projectiles! Too much complaints of units or Civs OP but what makes them OP is the bad unrealistic mechanics. No friendly damage and infinite projectiles mess the game up. 

Melee fight should be the main battle as that was what happened then. 

I think the hardest problem here is how to make the AI for this. 

Sounds like you only play total war games or any RTS AoE-like.

[Guest]

Realistically, people tend to die after just one javelin hit. They carried more than enough javelins to battle I guess.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

@(-_-)That could potentially be the case, but it depends on where the spear hit and the type of armour used.  All to often, in part due to the depictions of media, the effectiveness of armour is severely underplayed.

As for whether the changes would be applicable to a non-battalion based combat system, it's certain that it wouldn't be as straightforward, but I think that the implementation would still be viable.  Players would just have to think of their archer and javelin units as dealing out area of effect damage as opposed to them being extremely accurate snipers.  Their purpose would be for doing things such as skirmishing and other things that are historically informed.

[Stan`]

Still waiting for #252 and #2577 @bb_

[thankforpie]

On 11/10/2018 at 5:12 AM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

If the interesting options discussed in this thread are too hard to implement, ranged units could crudely be nerfed by just increasing their production time, reducing their accuracy, or reducing their general dps.  If historically a civilization was known to fielding a particular ranged unit as the majority of their army maybe that civilization alone can have a in bonus production speed, accuracy, or general dps for that unit.

 

 

yes, lowering slingers dmg by 0.2 and javelins by 0.1 (or some similar values, where slingers would be nerfed more than javelins) and leaving archers as they are would be simple, quick, and "not breaking anything" fix (current situation in 0 ad: slingers>javelins>melee units>archers)

 

directional defence/dmg, obstacles lowering accuracy etc are all very nice fixes but imo simply lowering the dmg of slingers and javelins (slingers more) would already change the gameplay tomore ballanced

Edited January 2, 2019 by thankforpie