Macemen

[fatherbushido]

I'd like to discuss about that unit.

Welcomed inputs: history, classic RTS design, artistic, balance and more.

I took time to reinstall 0AD alpha 23 b to have a common basis discussion.

=== === ===

About design docs on trac.

The unit was not in the unit list of the initial version: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryas?version=3

It was introduced as a swordman (light armored) called Yoddha: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryas?version=11

It was equiped with an axe instead of a sword: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryas?version=24

The idea of giving it a club: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryas?version=25

Renames as a maceman: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryas?version=37

=== === ===

About the history of the unit template.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/log/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units/maur_champion_infantry.xml

Apart the Crush damage, one of the main change is adding a parent template so macemen become a new kind of generic unit in r20682.

=== === ===

About the unit history and artistic design.

I can't provide any input. I find the unit kinda cool.

=== === ===

About the unit role and the balance.

It's kinda fun to give units special attributes. But really that should be a bit more thought now. We have melee units with axe, club, mace (and sword, spear, sarissa, ...). Should they have generic templates ?  Should they have specific kind of damages?

Currently we have a unit which look pretty heavy and which specific use is to destroy building with a crush attack. It's really not intuitive for a casual player.

=== === ===

Inputs welcomed!

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by fatherbushido

[fatherbushido]

(On the vid above, there is obviously a bias, the role of a unit should not be defined in a unit vs unit basis.)

[Feldfeld]

As of right now, balance wise they are not very useful. It could perhaps be interesting to make them efficient vs armored units and less cost effective against lightly armored units . Could be done maybe by introducing new attack type and having other units have very little armor against it.

[fatherbushido]

7 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

As of right now, balance wise they are not very useful. It could perhaps be interesting to make them efficient vs armored units and less cost effective against lightly armored units . Could be done maybe by introducing new attack type and having other units have very little armor against it.

Thanks for the input, it's always nice to read you!

Introducing a new attack type is obviously seducing but it is something that I think should be avoided : if you need to add one damage type, you need to add one more... But what you mentioned is something which could be done without.

[Nescio]

The fundamental problem of 0 A.D. is that it's a mismatch of different approaches.

One approach would be that melee units inflict melee damage and ranged units inflict ranged damage. I believe that's the approach taken by Age of Kings, and also Delenda Est. To differentiate unit types one then needs bonus attacks. (In principle you don't even need any different damage types at all.)

Another apporach would be to have several damage types (e.g. blunt, hack, thrust, projectile), which allows differentiating units by giving them different armour levels (e.g. if you want to make swordsmen strong vs spearmen but weak vs macemen, raise their thrust armour and lower their crush armour), removing the need for bonus attacks. This is the approach taken by Empire Earth, and also in my 0abc mod. And no, you don't need to introduce a damage type for every weapon (e.g. “axe damage”); units can combine different damage types (e.g. axemen inflict hack and crush damage).

0 A.D. takes aspects of both approaches (e.g. spearmen inflict both hack and pierce damage, but also have a bonus attack vs cavalry; humans have very high crush armour levels, thus necessating artillery to inflict pierce damage in addition to crush damage) and is inferior to either. But that's how it is, changing it would be a fundamental overhaul, unlikely to be committed (the consensus is to favour the status quo).

1 hour ago, fatherbushido said:

About the unit role and the balance.

It's kinda fun to give units special attributes. But really that should be a bit more thought now. We have melee units with axe, club, mace (and sword, spear, sarissa, ...). Should they have generic templates ?  Should they have specific kind of damages?

Currently we have a unit which look pretty heavy and which specific use is to destroy building with a crush attack. It's really not intuitive for a casual player.

Yes, as anti-structure units, they're inefficient compared to rams and war elephants, and as anti-soldier units, they're ineffective because humans have high crush armour.

Maces were not as uncommon as 0 A.D. might suggest, not just in India and the Near-East, but also in the Americas and other parts of the world. Having a separate parent template makes sense, I for one would be in favour of introducing a citizen maceman template too, as well as separate templates for axemen. (But I'm biased, of course.) 0 A.D. also differentiates between spearmen and pikemen.

Historically, different weapons had different purposes: thrusting weapons (e.g. spears, daggers) were to inflict deep wounds, severly damaging vital organs; cutting weapons (e.g. machetes) to make broad, painful wounds; blunt weapons (e.g. maces) to break bones. That said, regardless of the weapon or wound, wounded are unable to fight properly, and wounds could get infected, so they might die afterwards. Moreover, soldiers tended to have multiple weapons (e.g. spear, javelin, and sword for Greek hoplites, or bow-and-arrows, axe, and dagger for Scythians), but that's something not possible to reflect in game.

PS The Kushite “Nuba clubman” is really a maceman: all variations of its weapon consist of a stick with a clearly visible macehead.

[fatherbushido]

4 minutes ago, Nescio said:

0 A.D. takes aspects of both approaches (e.g. spearmen inflict both hack and pierce damage, but also have a bonus attack vs cavalry; humans have very high crush armour levels, thus necessating artillery to inflict pierce damage in addition to crush damage) and is inferior to either.

I totally agree.

My personal taste is the second approach (in fact now it's to not use any of those stats) but I finally bent for something close to the first one (I could explain why but off topic). There are a lot of other stats, features to use (even without bonus).

8 minutes ago, Nescio said:

But that's how it is, changing it would be a fundamental overhaul, unlikely to be committed (the consensus is to favour the status quo).

It's something recent. It was just the merge of the experimental gameplay branch of that time https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15713#file143.

There are forks and mods where it is easy to commit!

13 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Yes, as anti-structure units, they're inefficient compared to rams and war elephants, and as anti-soldier units, they're ineffective because humans have high crush armour.

We can't disagree!

13 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Maces were not as uncommon as 0 A.D. might suggest, not just in India and the Near-East, but also in the Americas and other parts of the world. Having a separate parent template makes sense, I for one would be in favour of introducing a citizen maceman template too, as well as separate templates for axemen. (But I'm biased, of course.) 0 A.D. also differentiates between spearmen and pikemen.

Thanks for the input. Properly done (something like in 0abc), it makes sense: if spearmen and pikemen are differents, axemen should be too.

18 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Historically, different weapons had different purposes: thrusting weapons (e.g. spears, daggers) were to inflict deep wounds, severly damaging vital organs; cutting weapons (e.g. machetes) to make broad, painful wounds; blunt weapons (e.g. maces) to break bones. That said, regardless of the weapon or wound, wounded are unable to fight properly, and wounds could get infected, so they might die afterwards. Moreover, soldiers tended to have multiple weapons (e.g. spear, javelin, and sword for Greek hoplites, or bow-and-arrows, axe, and dagger for Scythians), but that's something not possible to reflect in game.

Yes!

In my opinion what we call a spearman or an hoplite in game is just an abstraction (I  It sounds also a bad idea for a clear classic RTS gameplay to introduce or to generalize mulitple weapons for a unit (as in getting a brown soup with all ingredients mixed).

Proper history tooltips or docs would help.

22 minutes ago, Nescio said:

PS The Kushite “Nuba clubman” is really a maceman: all variations of its weapon consist of a stick with a clearly visible macehead.

OK, I just saw https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1354 about that.

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gada_(mace)

[Genava55]

37 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gada_(mace)

Quite impractical.

[Loki1950]

It is a portrait of a deity after all.

Enjoy the Choice

[Nescio]

Slingers have a similar problem to macemen: crush attack makes them effective vs structures instead of soldiers, which does not really make sense. War elephants too, to a lesser extent.

3 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

There are a lot of other stats, features to use (even without bonus).

True, but since soldiers can also gather resources, changing e.g. their cost or walk speed affects their economic performance.

3 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

It's something recent. It was just the merge of the experimental gameplay branch of that time https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15713#file143.

That was committed about six years ago, so I wouldn't call it “recent”.

3 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

a spearman or an hoplite

Related, that 0 A.D. has hoplite templates, slightly differently from other spearmen, is something I don't condone: ὁπλίτης simply means “heavy-armed” (i.e. melee infantry). Speaking of which, I also think 0 A.D.'s interpretation of the kardakes is wrong (but that belongs to another thread).

[Genava55]

54 minutes ago, Loki1950 said:

It is a portrait of a deity after all.

Not that uncommon to portray such big maces, especially for cavalrymen, in the later eras (upper left):

Although it is probably an officer and ceremonial type of mace. It is also depicted in religious interpretation of historical events in Mughal India:

Edited April 25, 2020 by Genava55

[fatherbushido]

19 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Slingers have a similar problem to macemen: crush attack makes them effective vs structures instead of soldiers, which does not really make sense. War elephants too, to a lesser extent.

Sure.

For the elephant, the case is slightly different, I'd be interested to share our thoughts on another topic.

21 minutes ago, Nescio said:

True, but since soldiers can also gather resources, changing e.g. their cost or walk speed affects their economic performance.

Indeed, at least for the citizen soldiers. I think more of using other stats (spread, range - even the melee one, prepare and repeat attack time) and also adding other features. The armor stats are also underused (at least not how they could be used).

 

24 minutes ago, Nescio said:

That was committed about six years ago, so I wouldn't call it “recent”.

The game dev started in 2003 (?), it switched to open source around 2010 (?).

With mainly the first design ideas (and basically a decision to stuck to that which is a good thing), then a lot of more ideas and design and changes (that's also a good thing).

Around the alpha16, there was that gameplay (actually more a balance) branch which was merged. Then nothing changed anymore.

I will still think it's recent from historic point of view!

29 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Related, that 0 A.D. has hoplite templates, slightly differently from other spearmen, is something I don't condone: ὁπλίτης simply means “heavy-armed” (i.e. melee infantry). Speaking of which, I also think 0 A.D.'s interpretation of the kardakes is wrong (but that belongs to another thread).

Kardakes and the stoa's guys were just randomly threw in the game because there weren't anything new since a while...

Let's open that thread!

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, Nescio said:

the consensus is to favour the status quo

Ain't that the @#$%ing truth.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

Kardakes and the stoa's guys were just randomly threw in the game because there weren't anything new since a while...

If only there was a mod that fixed this that could serve as a guidepost for change. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

About "clubmen", the game would benefit from an assortment of basic club actors.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

If only there was a mod that fixed this that could serve as a guidepost for change. 

In some point someone need to said it that.

[Stan`]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

About "clubmen", the game would benefit from an assortment of basic club actors.

References?

[John 5]

Do any units give randomised damage? It could be useful to represend some weapon types. It would make combat more unpredictable in outcomes in skirmishes, but be predictable in larger battles as it would average out.

You swing a powerful unweildy weapon, mostly it's D damage, but 1:10 it's Dx20, representing a fatal hit. Unweildy weapon units could be more open to projectiles to balance.

This would have a load of variance and emergent tactics. EG: These units would be best coupled with armour upgrades, as the longer they live in a melee the more times they get their big hits in.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 4/25/2020 at 12:29 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

If only there was a mod that fixed this that could serve as a guidepost for change. 

I going to repeat again.

 

I said that many times. 0 A.D must adapt Delenda Est philosophy (counters, bonus vs specific units.) I told that to @Stan` but I haven't idea why is so hard have an agreement.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Lion.Kanzen

[fatherbushido]

7 hours ago, John 5 said:

Do any units give randomised damage? It could be useful to represend some weapon types. It would make combat more unpredictable in outcomes in skirmishes, but be predictable in larger battles as it would average out.

You swing a powerful unweildy weapon, mostly it's D damage, but 1:10 it's Dx20, representing a fatal hit. Unweildy weapon units could be more open to projectiles to balance.

This would have a load of variance and emergent tactics. EG: These units would be best coupled with armour upgrades, as the longer they live in a melee the more times they get their big hits in.

That's an interesting idea. It's simple and actually add something. That needs to be dig a bit. I would keep it for melee weapon as projectile weapon has already some sources of randomness. (Let's discuss about it in another topic if needed).

[Nescio]

3 hours ago, fatherbushido said:

That's an interesting idea. It's simple and actually add something. That needs to be dig a bit. I would keep it for melee weapon as projectile weapon has already some sources of randomness. (Let's discuss about it in another topic if needed).

Damage randomization adds realism, which is why I added it in my 0abc mod about a year ago; I simply inserted a `* randFloat(0.5, 1.5)` (@Freagarach pointed out which file and line I needed.)

[fatherbushido]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Damage randomization adds realism, which is why I added it in my 0abc mod about a year ago; I simply inserted a `* randFloat(0.5, 1.5)` (@Freagarach pointed out which file and line I needed.)

The difficulty is not adding it, it's adding it cleverly. For example I don't feel it's something interesting for projectiles (or in this case I wouldn't display any statistics to the player in the gui).

[Nescio]

4 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

For example I don't feel it's something interesting for projectiles

Why not? An arrow hitting an arm is not as deadly as one through the eye.

4 minutes ago, fatherbushido said:

(or in this case I wouldn't display any statistics to the player in the gui).

I agree. The average damage per second stays the same.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, Nescio said:

Why not? An arrow hitting an arm is not as deadly as one through the eye.

True, but in reality, a significant wound to the arm takes a combatant out of the fray as much as a wound to the eye. Just a thought.

[John 5]

Not something I genrerally agree with, but some games designers would say that it can harm enjoyment if things are too random, in that players become unsure if plans will work.
That's why I said it would average out in larger group attacks. I think it would be a good thing to devalue single/low unit number harrasment with micro.

Regarding Arrows also having Damage randomness. It would similarly make things a more unpredictable and gives more constant jeopardy (like combat). So even if an archer might only get 4 shots off at a cavalry charging them, if they get lucky and kill the rider, so be it.

The other benefit that is much more realistic, is you don't have the cumulative hits of regular small wounds. I don't think that's how it works... you either are pretty healthy, but losing stamina, or you get a serious incapacitation. Encouraging constant monitoring of health stats is not very realistic or strategic.

If done alot, it changes the gameplay and strategic thinking/feel of the game so I could understand Devs/exisitng player push back...  it favours macro and statistical/odds based thinking and attacks plans, and makes micro with smaller groups less effective, which is my preference in RTS.