Economy and Citizen-Soldier Movement Speed

[thankforpie]

On 12/6/2018 at 6:38 AM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Some people complain that this game favors army compositions featuring a majority of ranged units and minority of melee units.  Well guess what?  Ranged units are also better for your eco, so all the more reason to spam them nearly nonstop!

Is the fact that Skirmishers have a significant eco bonus factored into the balancing of this game? 

They dash from the CC to the woodline like it's an olympic race!  Whether its moving from an exhausted woodline to the next one or returning from a battle to gather resources again, their speed is a significant economic bonus.  As they gather they continue to have an advantage economically because they go back and forth to the drop point faster.  Slingers are slower than skirmishers, but at least in early P1 it helps that they don't require as much wood.  But archers...

Archers lose fights 1v1 to every citizen-soldier in the game.  An all-archer army loses to all-skirmisher and all-slinger armies.  If it's not bad enough that they're the worst ranged unit in combat,  they are also worst ranged unit economically.  I understand that if they are faster than the other units they could just kite the enemy all day since they also have more range, and that's undesirable.

I've thought of some ideas that might help to mitigate this effect

• Units carrying resources all move at the same speed.  Not a complete fix since it only works for half of the journey between the resource and the drop point.
• Archer combat buffed ((increased damage or accuracy) or skirmishers/slingers nerfed)) so that even if archers are weaker for eco their superior combat ability makes up for it.
• Increase gather rates or carrying capacity of slower units.
• Less wood cost for archers (50 Food + 48 wood) and maybe also some other slower units.

Maybe not all but some combination of these things could even the playing field for archer civs.

 

 

can relate. ecoing with pikes on 5-15fps game is worst thing ever

 

using anything slower than slinger or javelin for your eco is very detrimental (+ the fact that ranged units are also stronger in fights than melee units)

just another reason to make everyone spam slingers or javelins since start

 

IMO good fix would be letting pikes, swordmen and spearmen get more resources each time they mine/chop (lets be honest they are grown men and wear heavy armor, it would be realistic to let them work faster and harder than these scrawny ranged units) and the slower they are the more resource would they obtain

 

so it would be somehow balanced

 

 

oh nvm just noticed u suggested it lol

[wackyserious]

Why not make use of something similar to DE massed shield bonus for melee units? With slingers in proximity of other slinger units having negative effect and archers in proximity of other units of their types gaining positive.

[DarcReaver]

What's the point of soldiers gathering resources anyways? We had this discussion SO many times, and each month there's some different issue that pops up around it and causes trouble. One time it was raiding cavalry for hunting, then it was skirm cavalry, now it's skirmishsrs/slingers.

Every RTS game has resource gatherers and military separated. 0 ad has both. One is unnecessary. Just remove the military resource collection already. It's been discussed for years taht it's a crappy concept and is no improvement or unique/interesting at all.

About the Slinger/Skirm/Archer differentiation:

In a game type like 0 AD currently is you don't need all of them at all.

It would be best to use slingers OR archers. I.e. factions that were known as "bow masters" get an archer line, factions that relied on slingers get a slinger line, and both counter melee infantry units. Skirms are made counter archers and counter spears.

Problem solved.

Alternatively it would be intesting to create a different concept for ranged units in general.

Archers have good range, and deal consistent damage over all ranges and medium speed. Have the option to "rain arrows" on areas or use fire arrows that demoralize enemy units aswell. Consistent, high rate of fire, and good accuracy (based on the type/experience of the archer). Upgrades rely on giving better armor and higher range + rate of fire.

Slingers have a good range aswell, but their missiles to more damage on close range than higher range, and their accuracy is much worse at high range. Their speed is also better than archers.
Also opposed to bows they can only improve their accuracy and damage, but not range.

Skirmishers start off with the lowest range and highest missile damage, but low rate of fire and mediocre mobility. Upgrades give better armor and better damage.

So slingers would dance around and try to get good short range shooting positions while skirms would try to attack as many different units to provide maximum damage, and archers would be used in large formations to support their melee units by demoralizing and damaging the enemy from afar.

The mounted counterparts could be made exclusive for certain civs, so they get only basic skirms but also mounted skirms (sort of like a unique unit), and factions with cav archers get them instead of regular archers. Although I'm sort of over those generic tech trees for a dozen factions anyways... If I want that I play AoE II.

Edited January 3, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DarcReaver said:

Every RTS game has resource gatherers and military separated. 0 ad has both. One is unnecessary. Just remove the military resource collection already. It's been discussed for years taht it's a crappy concept and is no improvement or unique/interesting at all.

That’s just your opinion. Personally, I think it’s great. And I know others who think so as well.

Although, 0AD didnt quite manage to reach all the way. It’s currently half-baked.

[Servo]

Personally I don’t like citizen-soldiers. But I don’t mind having armies as gatherers or builders. The problem is that game is becoming too far off from being  realistic with the citizen-soldier present game mechanics. Sometimes it’s fun to see/spec soldiers carrying a “grenade launcher” but tbh their actions doesn’t make sense.

If they are allowed to gather, build and fight the tasks should be one at a time. If they gather or build there must be a time frame of conversion from one task to the next. 

I know people or experts try to reduce micro of the game but it makes the game not nice.

Why not if you gather you have to either drop off resources then maybe have 1-2 seconds to convert to soldiers. If the player clicks his units to fight when on gather it should take also 1-2 seconds to convert to military stance but losses the resources he gathered. The same as when building structures they should have conversion time too. 

For me it’s best to have separate. But workers can become militia with techs (RoN style). 

Some will say ohh the game can take too long to finish (to me it’s a BS). Most higher level team games last only a bit more than 30 mins. I think more players enjoy the game when it last more longer which happens when teams or individuals are balanced. 

 

[Sundiata]

Why can't citizen soldiers just be citizens when they're working? When you get attacked, sound a specific horn, and your citizen soldiers (still in citizen attire) run fast to the nearest barracks and are equipped with weapons and armor. Now barracks have another function, other than just recruiting, and would make them and their positioning more important. It would make defending a more deliberate act. It would also emphasize the difference between militia type citizenry and a professional standing army of mercenaries and champions, which may or may not be accompanied by citizen soldiers called up for combat. It would also make ambushing defenseless workers more viable. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Sundiata

[LANDLORD]

I don't hate the citizen-soldier combination in 0AD- it is a little different in this RTS than others (where you see standard villagers in AOE, probes/scvs/drones in starcraft, etc). It also gives you different strategy options in terms of what you can do (you can either pull all military units when first attacking OR you can leave some chopping wood to maintain your economy). Both have advantages and disadvantages. 

[DarcReaver]

1 hour ago, LANDLORD said:

I don't hate the citizen-soldier combination in 0AD- it is a little different in this RTS than others (where you see standard villagers in AOE, probes/scvs/drones in starcraft, etc). It also gives you different strategy options in terms of what you can do (you can either pull all military units when first attacking OR you can leave some chopping wood to maintain your economy). Both have advantages and disadvantages. 

Yes and there is  a good reason that military and economy is segregated.

If you have 10 soldiers that gather 100 food/minute, each enemy villager/soldier costs 50 food, And you have 30 seconds to move to enemy base you have following equation: 10 x 100 x 0.5 = 500 food = attacker lost the resources equal to 10 villagers from running soldiers away from his own food sources over to enemy base.

So the attacker has to kill at least 11 villagers to get an advantage from attacking. If you expand the equation, the enemy can use his 10 soldiers to gather for 30 seconds aswell. So enemy gets +500 food, attacker gets -500, means 1000 food difference even without any fight happening. Considering it's likely you get losses (because enemy military units can defend themselves while gathering) it's even more stupid to attack.

So, in short the concept is broken. That's why proper RTS don't do it. And 0 AD just does it because it once was a mod for AoE II and someone thought it's a cool idea to divide "villagers male/female (only optical difference)" into "Citizen Soldiers" and "women" so it is different from AoE II.

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Are there issues with the current system?  Yes, but the line between soldier and gatherer can still be more subtle than what DarcReaver argues.  There are a few issues with the current system, some of which have already been mentioned:

Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack.  They shouldn't.  This would properly penalise a player that does not have adequate knowledge of what an opponent is doing while rewarding  opportunistic raids.  

Citizen-soldiers are a broad generalisation for the roles of men in society.  Most labour at least in the Greco-Roman world was done by slaves, which should be implemented in some way.  It is questionable to have citizen-soldiers be able to mine resources.  Furthermore, women are overly generalised.  In most Greek and Roman societies, they mainly did housework, not collecting resources.  There would be some exceptions such as maybe Spartan and Celtic women.

Cavalry probably should not hunt.  They represent the nobility, who would not be doing much personally to gather food.  

[DarcReaver]

 

8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack.  They shouldn't.  This would properly penalise a player that does not have adequate knowledge of what an opponent is doing while rewarding  opportunistic raids.  

If gathers should not be able to repel attackers then WHY make military units that can attack gather resources in the first place? That's complete nonsense. Military units are meant to fight. That's why they are military units. This is not a city building simulator but an RTS.

8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Citizen-soldiers are a broad generalisation for the roles of men in society.  Most labour at least in the Greco-Roman world was done by slaves, which should be implemented in some way.  It is questionable to have citizen-soldiers be able to mine resources.  Furthermore, women are overly generalised.  In most Greek and Roman societies, they mainly did housework, not collecting resources.  There would be some exceptions such as maybe Spartan and Celtic women.

Cavalry probably should not hunt.  They represent the nobility, who would not be doing much personally to gather food.  

So, again - why should citizen soldiers gather resources? When I look over the boards I see dozens of topics about historical accuracy for buildings, uniforms, weapons, unit types and so on. Then why is one of the main components of the game (economy) based on fantasy? 

8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Are there issues with the current system?  Yes, but the line between soldier and gatherer can still be more subtle than what DarcReaver argues.  There are a few issues with the current system, some of which have already been mentioned:

Yes there can be more subtle differences between soldiers and gatherers. For example you can give gatherers an ability to defend themselves (Town Bell, Call to Arms/Militia for a period of time, hiding in buildings, permanently transform them into a military unit for a resource cost etc.).

But what's the point to have fighting gatherers and gathering fighters? Either remove the split altogether or split economy units and military units but don't mix both.

There are dozens of unique and working gameplay concepts for RTS resource gathering (DoW franchise, BFME franchise, C&C red alert, C&C Generals, Warcraft 3, Rise of Nations, Hearts of Iron etc etc.) that can be utilized instead of using a 15 year old modding reference "to make it different from AoE II" without putting any thought in the system itself and how teh game requires it to work.

Let's summarize:

- citizen soldiers are mostly unrealistic from a historical viewpoint
- citizen soldiers cause trouble with resource balance (each second a military unit walks/attacks/chases enemy units instead of collecting resources = lost resources for the military unit owner)
- citizen soldiers cause trouble with attacking/defending (resource gatherer can protect itself)
- citizen soldiers are annoying to micro after an attack (since military usually forms up for defense you have to readjust every soldier back to his original task)

So, apart from "it's different system from AoE" is an advantage of this system?

 All the issues can easily be avoided by admitting that it's a crappy concept and start over with a different concept that actually makes sense.
Just to name some examples:

1) Scrap military/economy split by either removing citizen soldiers OR gatherers with a new resource system. Possible options:

1. based on map control: player who controls areas on the map gains resources automatically - settlements, quarries, mines etc. are on the map to be captured and produce resources automatically (DoW/CoH system) 
2. buildings that gather based on the terrain, i.e. you can build quarries next to stone resource spots, and a limited amount of workers can gather resources from there , either automatically or trained by the player from the building (Warcraft III/Starcraft/C&C Generals system)
3. Farms/quarries/mines can be build anywhere but require to be spaced out, else they produce less resources (BFME system) 
4. You simply gain resources over time automatically based upon the amount of cities you have (hearts of iron)

2) You stick with the original AoE II/AoM approach. For this the game needs to be slowed down. DRASTICALLY. Having a detailed economy means players need time to plan. No planning time means it's too chaotic to have fun. The more the game is based on fighting the more automated the economy has to be. Managing 4 or 5 resources, hundreds of single workers and military at the speed of starcraft is bad.

3) You think of an entirely new concept. However since the last time this happened Citizen soldiers were introduced I doubt that's a good idea...

Edited January 10, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Sundiata]

@DarcReaver I agree that the current system is flawed, primarily because "Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack", as Thorfinn and others have pointed out.

I personally prefer this system:

1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:

buildings that gather based on the terrain, i.e. you can build quarries next to stone resource spots, and a limited amount of workers can gather resources from there

Farms built on fertile lands. farm income based on amount of assigned workers and fertility of the soil. Mines (stone, iron, gold) built on sockets in in rocky/mountainous areas away from your starting CC. Most of them shouldn't deplete, but provide a set income based on size and amount of assigned worker (slaves or serfs). Workers assigned to a logging camp, with a wood income determined by amount of assigned workers and trees within its radius. Set the logging camp to clear the forrest for a large, quick, unreplenishable income of wood, or set it to sustainable logging, for a slow but permanent wood income (forrest remains intact/regrows).  

I disagree however with your statement that Citizen Soldiers are unhistorical. That's not true at all... The way they are implemented is the problem (switching between working tools and weapons in a split second). Professional standing armies of paid soldiers was definitely not the norm in Antiquity. The majority of warriors in most civilization had a day job (farming, herding, hunting, day labour, civic jobs, a little bit of this, a little bit of that)...

The thing is that they should be called up to fight, run towards an armory (barracks), and be equipped with weapons and arms. This would be different from recruiting a new army, which would take much longer. Calling your already trained citizens to arms wouldn't cost you anything excepts for the time it takes (and the the lost resource income because of fewer workers). This alone would help a lot to level the playing field between attacker and defender.

A standing professional army should ideally compliment your citizen soldiers, when and where necessary. But the distinction/nuance between resource gathering citizen soldiers and non-gathering champions is really nice in my opinion. And historically more accurate than scrapping the system entirely. It just needs fine tuning (no immediate switch between tools and weapons), in combination with a revamped economic system (node-based). 

[DarcReaver]

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

@DarcReaver I agree that the current system is flawed, primarily because "Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack", as Thorfinn and others have pointed out.

I personally prefer this system:

Farms built on fertile lands. farm income based on amount of assigned workers and fertility of the soil. Mines (stone, iron, gold) built on sockets in in rocky/mountainous areas away from your starting CC. Most of them shouldn't deplete, but provide a set income based on size and amount of assigned worker (slaves or serfs). Workers assigned to a logging camp, with a wood income determined by amount of assigned workers and trees within its radius. Set the logging camp to clear the forrest for a large, quick, unreplenishable income of wood, or set it to sustainable logging, for a slow but permanent wood income (forrest remains intact/regrows).  

Yes. And before determining which resources are used there needs to be decided which ones actually should be in the game. About sustainable logging: Unless there is a reason why the forests on the map should be removable (i.e. to provide building space) there's no need to clear forests. This also depends alot on the planned average game length and the amount of resource spots per player.  

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

@DarcReaver I agree that the current system is flawed, primarily because "Citizen-soldiers can instantly react to an attack", as Thorfinn and others have pointed out.  

I disagree however with your statement that Citizen Soldiers are unhistorical. That's not true at all... The way they are implemented is the problem (switching between working tools and weapons in a split second). Professional standing armies of paid soldiers was definitely not the norm in Antiquity. The majority of warriors in most civilization had a day job (farming, herding, hunting, day labour, civic jobs, a little bit of this, a little bit of that)...

Thorfinn stated the unreal Citizen Soldiers first, I just took over his statement. However I support that opinion, it IS unhistorical the way it currently is.

- No ancient soldier ever chopped wood while carrying a Sarissa/sword/armour/bow/shield (just like you said)  
- most Citizens indeed had a job, but only few worked as farmers, miners or woodchoppers, especially in cities.They were fishermen, salesmen, blacksmiths, smelters, stonemasons etc.  They created trading goods for sale or use, but not for the government to supply their armies. That's what tax money was for.  
 

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

The thing is that they should be called up to fight, run towards an armory (barracks), and be equipped with weapons and arms. This would be different from recruiting a new army, which would take much longer. Calling your already trained citizens to arms wouldn't cost you anything excepts for the time it takes (and the the lost resource income because of fewer workers). This alone would help a lot to level the playing field between attacker and defender.

A standing professional army should ideally compliment your citizen soldiers, when and where necessary. But the distinction/nuance between resource gathering citizen soldiers and non-gathering champions is really nice in my opinion. And historically more accurate than scrapping the system entirely. It just needs fine tuning (no immediate switch between tools and weapons), in combination with a revamped economic system (node-based). 

But... why? What's the point? Why do you train military units as resource gatherer (that in fact are no military units because they have no weapons) to pick up weapons for defense and then return to gathering resources again when the enemy is gone? Why not simply make automated, node based resource production and players get to train basic troops (low tier) and professional troops (high tier)? Why is it so important to keep a crappy feature? 

Edited January 10, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Anaxandridas ho Skandiates]

. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Anaxandridas ho Skandiates

[DarcReaver]

2 hours ago, Anaxandridas ho Skandiates said:

Just imagine the citizen-soldier as a unit representing a citizen and his estate including slaves and wider family; they can do fighting to some extent in times of necessity, but elite units are obviously superior.

(Note that "soldier" is a slightly inaccurate term, as it denotes someone who is paid for military service - "sold", "soldum", "solidus".)

So Citizens are villagers that serve war from time to time. Fine. Then the current concept still is crap. It doesn't even have to do with imagination. The system doesn't remotely reflect that. Resource gatherer 90% of the time and 10% going to war means that the citizen should be unarmed all game long except for a handful of times when the base it attacked.

The concept that military units permanently harvest resources is simply bad. I have named numerous reasons why that is.

Either timed option to turn villagers into militia for defense or
upgrade option to turn a villager into a soldier for a resource cost.
or remove it altogether (which is the best option to avoid players spamming villagers from his buildings, running them to the enemy base and transform them into soldiers of various kinds to counter enemy units).

btw that's how  a defensive mechanism for a villager/resource gather can look like via ability (obviously this game was some comp stomper noob in wc3 so the skill/execution is bad, but you can see the game mechanic):

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by DarcReaver

[odalman]

An idea for slightly more realism:

• The player never tells a citizen which tree he should chop.
• The player associates each citizen with a dropsite. He will go there and deposit his armour and wepon.
• The dropsite sends its associated citizens to a resource site.
• The player can tell the dropsite in which proportion it should try to collect the different kinds of resources. Or this could be done on a higher (economy-wide) level and more or less automatic/smart.
• The dropsite would send its slowest-moving citizens to the closest resource sites and the faster-moving citizens further away.
• The player can mark resource sites (such as trees) for clearing (to get building space). Then the nearby dropsite(s) will prefer to send their citizens there. Otherwise it will send them to the nearest resource site.
• The player could also mark areas as forbidden for workers (because of danger).
• When one of the citizens of a dropsite sees an enemy, he shouts to his colleagues and they all go to the dropsite, leave their resources and get their armour and weapon. (So the dropsite would work like a swedish mobiliseringsförråd during the previous cold war.)
• Associating a citizen with a dropsite may not have to be done manually. A dropsite could automatically suck in an idle citizen. Although the player could set the number (and maybe type) of citizens that a particular dropsite should have.

[Dakara]

Un soldat c'est avant tout un larbin, un larbin qui récolte du bois pour faire un camp romain ou construit une route ^^

Le système de citoyens-soldat rend unique ce jeu, et permet de se détacher de tout ces RTS où l'APM a trop d'importance

[DarcReaver]

On 1/26/2019 at 12:53 PM, odalman said:

An idea for slightly more realism:

• The player never tells a citizen which tree he should chop.
• The player associates each citizen with a dropsite. He will go there and deposit his armour and wepon.
• The dropsite sends its associated citizens to a resource site.
• The player can tell the dropsite in which proportion it should try to collect the different kinds of resources. Or this could be done on a higher (economy-wide) level and more or less automatic/smart.
• The dropsite would send its slowest-moving citizens to the closest resource sites and the faster-moving citizens further away.
• The player can mark resource sites (such as trees) for clearing (to get building space). Then the nearby dropsite(s) will prefer to send their citizens there. Otherwise it will send them to the nearest resource site.
• The player could also mark areas as forbidden for workers (because of danger).
• When one of the citizens of a dropsite sees an enemy, he shouts to his colleagues and they all go to the dropsite, leave their resources and get their armour and weapon. (So the dropsite would work like a swedish mobiliseringsförråd during the previous cold war.)
• Associating a citizen with a dropsite may not have to be done manually. A dropsite could automatically suck in an idle citizen. Although the player could set the number (and maybe type) of citizens that a particular dropsite should have.

While the idea behind this is kinda okay, this adds a lot of more unnecessary micro to the game because it's needlessly complicated.

A much less complicated version of this is that you add builder units to the game that build resource camps. From those camps workers automatically emerge and start collecting the resource the camp is meant for. The number of workers per drop site can be increased by buying/training more workers up to a maxiumum of X per drop site.

As you can see this solution is much cleaner, more automated and easier to understand.

However, the "call to arms" feature for resource camps is not a good idea in general. If you have self defending economy you make raiding and direct combat less effecting. Since early raids cannot take out the economy there's a lot of "units dance around resource spots" until a very late stage of the game.

Edited January 27, 2019 by DarcReaver

[odalman]

On 1/27/2019 at 10:46 PM, DarcReaver said:

While the idea behind this is kinda okay, this adds a lot of more unnecessary micro to the game because it's needlessly complicated.

A much less complicated version of this is that you add builder units to the game that build resource camps. From those camps workers automatically emerge and start collecting the resource the camp is meant for. The number of workers per drop site can be increased by buying/training more workers up to a maxiumum of X per drop site. 

As you can see this solution is much cleaner, more automated and easier to understand.

I envision that the user gets as much automation as he wants. If he does nothing at all, his player will be computer controlled. So defaults should be sensible. But the user can turn off particular automation features at different levels and try to manage things better manually. (If the player has turned off for example automatic building placement, the automation could still make suggestions, like "now it seems to be a good idea to build a storehouse here, OK?". Of course the user should be able to turn off suggestions as well.) Whether the workers emerge automatically from a civic center, barracks or the resource camp itself is a detail that could differ between factions. It should be automatic in any case. (It would make sense for the resource camp to provide the necessary housing for the workers associated with it.)

On 1/27/2019 at 10:46 PM, DarcReaver said:

However, the "call to arms" feature for resource camps is not a good idea in general. If you have self defending economy you make raiding and direct combat less effecting. Since early raids cannot take out the economy there's a lot of "units dance around resource spots" until a very late stage of the game.

I watched all the 0ad videos by Tom on youtube and people seem to like playing the game with citizen solders (and I liked watching such games). The "call to arms" feature would work in the Rock–paper–scissors type of system that is Raiding-turtling-booming. To counter raiding, a player would turtle by setting his most exposed resource camps to request citizen soldiers. To counter turtling, a player would boom by setting his resource camps to request cheaper female citizens. To counter booming, a player would raid. The player also has to consider which mix of soldiers a resource cam should request, depending on which kind of rush might come. This system could provide interesting and challenging games. And as I wrote above, the defaults should be sensible. So the composition of workers requested by a resource camp should be automatically set according to how exposed it seems to be to raids. And of course the user should be able to override this.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I just want <ShuttleSpeed> kthnxbye