Wow's Forge Rework Idea

[Freagarach]

I guess you mean Phab:D2175, @wowgetoffyourcellphone? For the others, feel free try it out and suggest improvements (Or take over the diff and finish it ^^ )

[submariner]

4 hours ago, Dragonoar said:

Were you able to get it to work? Squad works much much better when units have synced animation, which doesn't exist yet in 0 AD.

Maybe at this point just make a unit grouping where you can't select individual soldier. The formation system already gives the illusion of a squad.

That's what I was thinking about custom grouping would be much more powerful than hard battalions.

 

@Freagarach now thats interesting as I see something with "form", "disband", gonna have to learn how to apply diff.

Edited March 17, 2021 by submariner

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 hours ago, submariner said:

That's what I was thinking about custom grouping would be much more powerful than hard battalions.

Have you played either of the Battle for Middle Earth games?

[Alar1k]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Have you played either of the Battle for Middle Earth games?

I totally recomend that people try out Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the witch king community patch because it is still active and going well and the game is nicely balanced with each faction having different troops and buildings - and yes, that battalion sizes do work there phenomenally well but also one should keep in mind that in Bfme games there is only one resource to gather (money) which is gathered by farm buildings passively, so I don't see that type of battalions being good in 0ad


On the other hand - I would really like to see battalion formations like american conquest where captain/cheef could make a battalion along with flagbearer/shaman and give troops more moral/better stats in formations (this would be neat because in 0ad we could then add generals that are a support unit kinda like hero but low damage/gives buffs to formation - and when you go to fight you form a desired formation with the general - and if your army gathering resources is ambushed you should really feel the ambush as is - not have a prepared formation because to build/gather resources general disbands units - and units can only be formed in formation if they are in a radius of a general - this would make things super interesting - the surprise attack would still have potential to do damage and instil fear

EDIT: to add one more opinion - I think that this general with unit formation aura could really help out with ingame formation issues because then the general should be necessary for the formation, and units themselves wouldn't have that option as a given, and the buffs to formations would be based in a single unit that provides the bonus so easier to implement then in a formation code - if there are heroes with existing auras this could be just like that but "masked" as a formation bonus - like for example - tetsudo formation gets bonus armour in formation - roman general that grants tetsudo would give the bonus defence aura - and when he dies battalion disbands/bonus is gone - that way we could have buffs for formations that are easier to define (each civ gets a general quarters and can train certain type of generals for certain kind of unit formations/buffs to make things easier to code/implement

Edited March 17, 2021 by Alar1k

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, Alar1k said:

I totally recomend that people try out Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the witch king community patch because it is still active and going well and the game is nicely balanced with each faction having different troops and buildings - and yes, that battalion sizes do work there phenomenally well but also one should keep in mind that in Bfme games there is only one resource to gather (money) which is gathered by farm buildings passively, so I don't see that type of battalions being good in 0ad

Your reasoning doesn't follow. Battalions inherently reduce micro, so if 0 A.D. maintains the same number of resources, then ipso facto micro is reduced. Instead of 200+ soldiers, you'd have 20+ battalions to maintain control of. The number of resources doesn't even factor in to the battalion feature. The developers of BfME2 even said in a dev blog that they use 1 resource (supply) because of the need to reduce micro even further for console interfacing. They also wanted less base building and economy management and more combat, so only went with 1 resource. 

[Alar1k]

31 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Your reasoning doesn't follow. Battalions inherently reduce micro, so if 0 A.D. maintains the same number of resources, then ipso facto micro is reduced. Instead of 200+ soldiers, you'd have 20+ battalions to maintain control of. The number of resources doesn't even factor in to the battalion feature. The developers of BfME2 even said in a dev blog that they use 1 resource (supply) because of the need to reduce micro even further for console interfacing. They also wanted less base building and economy management and more combat, so only went with 1 resource. 

Yes, they reduce micro, but still it is hard to implement when units gather and fight - (and I don't really like soldiers only fighting, most rts games do this like that... I really like 0ad because it lets you gather and fight with same units  because it makes it stand out) - if there is an easy way to make units in formations/battalions not get stuck on every single tree in the game then it would be just fine to have battalions - but also, if we turn the game battalions only like bfme is - then you cannot train units one by one but instead wait to gather enough resources to train the whole battalion - that is not really a cheap and economically positive thing to do in 0ad - and we should also keep in mind that some players don't play 0ad for the massive battalion battles, but rather prefer city building and having a lot options to build

Swiching to battalion only play-style imho is not a possitive thing because it would prolong the early game on maps where wood is hard to gather - and add to it that you could only fight with battalions and not collect as well - as things are now with economy you could train your first battalion in first few minutes (let's assume that you need to spam women/villagers to gather both food/wood to make it economically possible to make 2-3 battalions one at a time and that one battalion = (edit 10 soildier) 10 soldiers - that is 500 food and 500 wood for 1 battalion if 1 soldier now costs 50 each - and also if cav battalions are in size of 10 it would be 10x100 food and 10x50 wood for javelin cav battalion)


And also to point it out removing food/wood/stone/metal and adding just one resource (money) is not an option I would like to see in 0ad just for the sake of micromanagement in fights and battalion implementation

Edited March 17, 2021 by Alar1k

[Lion.Kanzen]

battalions function best as implemented in Rise and Fall : Civilizations  at War.

They can form a battalion and Individually they ask to be separated into unique units.

From the creators of the first Empire Earth.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 hours ago, Alar1k said:

Yes, they reduce micro, but still it is hard to implement when units gather and fight - (and I don't really like soldiers only fighting, most rts games do this like that... I really like 0ad because it lets you gather and fight with same units  because it makes it stand out) - if there is an easy way to make units in formations/battalions not get stuck on every single tree in the game then it would be just fine to have battalions - but also, if we turn the game battalions only like bfme is - then you cannot train units one by one but instead wait to gather enough resources to train the whole battalion - that is not really a cheap and economically positive thing to do in 0ad - and we should also keep in mind that some players don't play 0ad for the massive battalion battles, but rather prefer city building and having a lot options to build

Swiching to battalion only play-style imho is not a possitive thing because it would prolong the early game on maps where wood is hard to gather - and add to it that you could only fight with battalions and not collect as well - as things are now with economy you could train your first battalion in first few minutes (let's assume that you need to spam women/villagers to gather both food/wood to make it economically possible to make 2-3 battalions one at a time and that one battalion = (edit 10 soildier) 10 soldiers - that is 500 food and 500 wood for 1 battalion if 1 soldier now costs 50 each - and also if cav battalions are in size of 10 it would be 10x100 food and 10x50 wood for javelin cav battalion)


And also to point it out removing food/wood/stone/metal and adding just one resource (money) is not an option I would like to see in 0ad just for the sake of micromanagement in fights and battalion implementation

You assume a lot, like costs and such remaining the same.

 

9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

battalions function best as implemented in Rise and Fall : Civilizations  at War.

They can form a battalion and Individually they ask to be separated into unique units.

From the creators of the first Empire Earth.

I want the ability for hard battalions so I can prove you two wrong with Delenda Est.  lol

Edited March 18, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

You assume a lot, like costs and such remaining the same.

 

I want the ability for hard battalions so I can prove you two wrong with Delenda Est.  lol

I also liked praetorians battalions, They can be reduced into smaller groups according to casualties.

[Alar1k]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

You assume a lot, like costs and such remaining the same.

 

I want the ability for hard battalions so I can prove you two wrong with Delenda Est.  lol

Well since we don't agree on this full scale of hard battalion implementation i propose a middle ground - what would you say to an idea of making a different "flavour" inside the base game that would be called something like "battle of the armies" - in that type of game like we have an option of relics gameplay we could have an inbuild mod in the base game that would be oriented towards the battle more then on economy - unit battalions would cost less and be trained faster - this would be focused on the real-time tactics gameplay

Personally, I don't really feel hard battalions but wouldn't mind to have an option of playing that style with 0ad factions/feel - imho single units should be the main core of the game still, but the formations of battalions should be a viable option - not standard - I really like the feel of 1 unit making huge difference, and that is something that tends to be lost in hard battalion rts-s - for example small multiplayer games on tiny maps with pop set to 50 would make the best example, especially when sparta had pop disadvantage in a23 and you really had to be economical not just with resources but with every single unit - the less the pop cap in-game the more focus on micro should be as it is now in the current stage of the game

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against implementation of battalions, on the contrary - I just don't like the fights taking more value overall then economy/strategic early decisions made in early game so I think that the game should not become another hard battalion rts, but remain with the focus on micromanagement and economical development with the ability to group units for better mobility and add attack/defence/speed bonuses in battle through combining units in specific formations that can be disbanded after battle when you need them doing something else

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I've always wanted a "Battle Mode" for the game, where it was similar to Total War's custom battles or historical battles. 

[thankforpieOfficial]

On 15/03/2021 at 9:07 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

See @ValihrAnt's blacksmith rework thread here: 

 

====================================================================

As always, Wow is here to propose something innovative and cool.

My Forge rework idea is that the Forge now acts similarly to a Market, in that it is used to exchange resources for something else. In this case, the player exchanges Raw Resources (Food, Wood, Metal, Stone) for Secondary Resources: Swords, Shields, Spears, Javelins, et al. So, now Soldiers don't cost Raw Resources, they cost Food and secondary resources:

Roman Hastatus

• 100 Food
• 5 Shield
• 5 Body Armor
• 6 Sword

So, those numbers mean something. For example: for every 1 hack resistance, they cost 1 Body Armor. For every hack attack, they cost 1 Sword. For every point of health, they cost 1 Food. The Sword resource had been bought (exchanged) at the Forge with the Metal raw resource (and possibly Wood, to account for the firewood necessary to forge and temper the weapons).

isnt that just changing currency

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I've always wanted a "Battle Mode" for the game, where it was similar to Total War's custom battles or historical battles. 

We could call it "art of war" or Historical challenges.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

21 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

"art of war"

That would actually work. 

[Palaiogos]

How about a bonus modifier which makes everything cheaper in terms of metal for forges?

[submariner]

On 17/03/2021 at 3:39 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Have you played either of the Battle for Middle Earth games?

No I havent really played any of those LOTR strategy games.

Games that I played a lot and enjoyed which are from RTS genre are,

Age of Mythology (classic, no titan crap),

Age of Empires 3 (amazing in LAN parties),

Command & Conquer Generals,

World in Conflict.

None of them had battalions, but also none of them had an option to have so many units as you can in 0ad, so I did not want to suggest any conversion to squad based game even if it suits very well in something like Total War series, but those are half TBS half RTS.

For me that battalionish support of @Freagarach is featureful enough, as it adds a lot of convenience, which becomes necessary when there's a lot of units.

 

Total War series has simulation element in those battles where formations and positioning and maybe waiting instead of charging or just walking instead of running, with polearms actually working based on impact of cavalry charge and whether it was light or heavy lancers, swiping infinfantry even if its polearmed. In Total War sense it fits but in fully RTS game hard battalions does not fit that well.

[Dragonoar]

9 hours ago, submariner said:

No I havent really played any of those LOTR strategy games.

Games that I played a lot and enjoyed which are from RTS genre are,

Age of Mythology (classic, no titan crap),

Age of Empires 3 (amazing in LAN parties),

Command & Conquer Generals,

World in Conflict.

None of them had battalions, but also none of them had an option to have so many units as you can in 0ad, so I did not want to suggest any conversion to squad based game even if it suits very well in something like Total War series, but those are half TBS half RTS.

For me that battalionish support of @Freagarach is featureful enough, as it adds a lot of convenience, which becomes necessary when there's a lot of units.

 

Total War series has simulation element in those battles where formations and positioning and maybe waiting instead of charging or just walking instead of running, with polearms actually working based on impact of cavalry charge and whether it was light or heavy lancers, swiping infinfantry even if its polearmed. In Total War sense it fits but in fully RTS game hard battalions does not fit that well.

Battalions make it less painful to micro, and with that system in place there is possibility for active abilities and to highlight importance of units. In RTS like 0 AD and AoE 1 skirmisher feels worthless, especially when the typical pop cap is around 300 (or more). Losing a unit feels painful in Warcraft 3, even more so in Total War. Also, in say a 50 v 50 archers engagement players focus attack killing 1 by 1. That is not historically accurate.

I'm not advocating battalions to replace individual units, but getting back to the topic at hand, if the forge mechanics were to be expanded upon, especially referring to the idea of armaments as resources, then something else has to be simplified. You can't have a game where you micromanage everything. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

17 minutes ago, Dragonoar said:

You can't have a game where you micromanage everything. 

That's very true, unless you slow everything down, which we don't really want, I presume. 

[Grapjas]

1 hour ago, Dragonoar said:

You can't have a game where you micromanage everything

Generally speaking, you would only micromanage everything if it's in a competitive/high skill setting. If somebody doesnt want to they can just play casually tbh. For some players, micromanaging = fun. For others its horrible. But yeah, batallions definitely reduce micro.

On 17/03/2021 at 2:39 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Have you played either of the Battle for Middle Earth games?

Absolutely loved them.

[wraitii]

15 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Generally speaking, you would only micromanage everything if it's in a competitive/high skill setting. If somebody doesnt want to they can just play casually tbh. For some players, micromanaging = fun. For others its horrible. But yeah, batallions definitely reduce micro.

'Micro' in competitive setting is just economics. When you implement a feature, and a 'low-APM' variant of that feature, either the latter is more efficient and then why have the high-APM variant, or it's not and then competitive players must not use it or they'll lose the game. It's extremely hard to make it mostly equivalent.

Bataillions run a high chance of ending up on either side, they could be OP and then why control individual units, or they could be worse and competitive play will rarely use them, introducing a 'glass ceiling' for newer players.

This can creep up to some unexpected features - in Age 2 for example, 'waypoint scouting' is shunned by the pros because scouting manually is slightly faster. The difference is honestly not big, but this QoL feature is just not used in the early game because the advantage, even if small, is enough. Conversely; they introduced 'auto scouting', and someone like TheViper uses AutoScout in the late game relatively often, even though you might expect pros to never use it.

Fundamentally, on a game where individual units can be controlled & that's desirable gameplay, such as 0 A.D., high APM competitive play will be a thing, unless the unit AI will always make the best possible decision (but then it's not a game anymore, is it)

[Grapjas]

@wraitii This is why a rock/paper/scissor system generally speaking works well. A tech/unit/thing can be strong but it needs to have a counter. I agree fully that balancing is a very hard thing to get right. One of the obvious advantages to batallion vs individuals would be that if the individual misses it target, he will likely hit the guy next to him (clutter), a siege weapon will likely hit alot of them at the same time etc. Another downside of batalion would be that you cant really microtarget enemies if you wanted to but they are 'easier' to manage.

My point was, if you get your ass kicked, you need to play with / against people of your skill level and thats where you will find enjoyment. Someone simply shouldnt expect to win from an experienced 1800 rated player if you are newb 1200.

But just because there are 100 options/ways to play a game doesnt mean you would need to use all 100 of them. It's about freedom for the player to choose a selection of 100 tools to execute a strategy he wants. <- This is what RTS is all about for me personally.

EDIT: it's possible i misunderstood some of your points so take my reply with a grain of salt.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Grapjas

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, wraitii said:

Bataillions run a high chance of ending up on either side, they could be OP and then why control individual units, or they could be worse and competitive play will rarely use them, introducing a 'glass ceiling' for newer players.

 

Right, and that's why soft battalions (soft anything really) are not the way to go. It's hard battalions or nothing, IMHO. Adding soft battalions introduces more micro, as now you have to spend time building battalions when you didn't before. Because as you said, if they are beneficial, then competitive players will have to use them. If they are a detriment, then competitive players won't use them and then they are a superfluous feature.

Hard battalions eliminates all that and gives us greater flexibility in adding combat features (like flanking, charges, shield walls, morale, etc etc etc) that would be superfluous or more difficult to manage with mosh pit units (I recoil in horror at the proposals that we should add morale management for 100s of mosh pit soldiers, while it would be much easier to add such details and management to a few dozen hard battalions). Also, with hard battalions, all players of all skill levels would have to use them and the meta is consistent at all skill levels.