Civ differentiation : playstyles

[Ceres]

Phew, interesting topic with lots of ideas and discussions. After reading until here, I would like to ask whether some kind of "basic game" could be retained for beginners of 0 A.D., allowing them to first learn the game itself, and then give the option to later expand on the different possibilities that distinguished civs offer. I.e., do you plan to make these changes as an option or will they replace what we currently have? I hope for the former, but of course this is just a personal wish and might be too complicated to achieve.

To my understanding, it all boils down to balancing. As long as it's fun to play with any civ, it's nice to have more pronounced "features", i.e. advantages/ disadvantages on some stats or because of specific units, but also some "specialties" that are not available yet, if realistic and historically correct enough.

Would it make sense to have civs that have only 2 phases? Either they get the stuff from P3 already in P2, or they don't get (all) achievements from P3. Or could some civs take longer for certain things, only to be achieved in a P4? (which we currently don't have)

Could certain achievements in a phase maybe only made after a civ has made contact (friendly or not) with another civ (i.e. to learn from it)? I assume that this happened in history, but right now I don't know of real examples/ sources of information.

Furthermore, you might discuss whether there should be more differentiation of available formations among the civs, i e. some could have far less formations than now. I have some barbaric tribes in mind and am pretty sure that formations were not their outstanding capability. But maybe I'm wrong. Instead, they were good traders and, if thinking about Vikings, great sailors. I purposely have not mentioned an existing civ to give this rather as a vague example.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Ceres

[Acanthis]

4 hours ago, Ceres said:

Furthermore, you might discuss whether there should be more differentiation of available formations among the civs, i e. some could have far less formations than now.

If formations were working there would be a lot of room for differentiation based on how the units are moved around the battlefield.

On a separate note, more support units like trumpets, drums, flag/standard bearers, supply wagons, etc would be another way to further change how civs are played. 

An elephant in the room is that people want to play sometimes vastly different games. For some, they want the game to be over and done with within 20 minutes, some even less. Others might enjoy longer games. Some want a deathmatch with boundless resources. Perhaps a further refinement of the game types available would be one way to branch off the different ideas. I wouldn't want to split the community too much, but like with all games there are different "groups" who play a certain way that don't quite understand how other people can have fun doing something else (like not taking advantage of every last disparity between units and civs). 

Personally, as someone who has studied ancient civilizations in an academic setting and into my adult life, I'd like to see more attention paid to things like formations, defenses, economics, logistics. From this perspective, terrain and strategy should account for more than it currently does. Ideally there would even be seasonal changes within the game which affect the pace of the match (in the eastern Mediterranean the summer was the fighting season and the winter was farming, in part due to temperature/precip patterns but also due to changes in wind and seaworthiness of the vessels at the time).

That said, I don't need free open source Total War clone: the current game is still a lot of fun, I simply find that there are a lot of elements of this game and its genre that haven't been pushed forward much lately.

It is too easy of course for someone without coding ability to say what would be nice or not, so I leave this here not to say this game isn't playable, but rather as a general wish to see some refinement on the above.

[alre]

1 hour ago, Acanthis said:

If formations were working there would be a lot of room for differentiation based on how the units are moved around the battlefield.

I think this is true in general, but what how would you think formation should be "working"?

I've put a lot of though lately to formations, battalions, and how to make battles more tidy and strategic in general, and I can't think about any way to make, for instance, hoplites fight in formation and also being balanced.

[maroder]

1 hour ago, alre said:

hoplites fight in formation and also being balanced.

just some ideas: they could stay in formation, but only the soilders from the formation can attack that are in range of the enemy. They get an increase in armor, but also a slower movent speed.

For the testudo: makes the formation invulnerable to pierce damage, but they canot attack

[alre]

that's reasonable, but any opposing army could just retreat where there is not enough space for a formation to move, and thus be invulnerable to them, until they leave formation. from there in the narrow, they could keep showering projectiles at the formation.

[Acanthis]

By work I mean, basic pathfinding and keeping the formation. It is intensely frustrating to play as Athens, for example, and try to use Iphicrates' bonus because- even if you select a formation, say box, as the default- the game will constantly remove units within the control group from the formation and even cancel it for the entire group. You can be in the middle of a fight, not giving any commands, and the entire army goes out of formation and you instantly lose the bonus. Attempting to reform the formation causes losses and no damage is dealt during the mean time. Sometimes I can get the formation to "stick" but it takes a lot of micromanagement just to keep them that way. This shouldn't be the case at all.

Otherwise, units get stuck constantly when in formation and turn into sitting ducks while units not in formation wipe them out. Formations offer almost zero advantages, unless you want to use them for cavalry in order to force them into their run speed to escape a situation (which requires a bit of micro and, lets be honest, isn't the function of a formation feature at all and should rather be more of a "charge" or "increase speed at the expense of stamina" feature).

If formations would "work" by allowing the units in the formation to move smoothly and not get hung up constantly, then you could look at buffs and debuffs like maroder mentioned. At the moment, adding any bonuses to one formation type or another would just be an exercise in frustration given how buggy the current feature is.

Once formations simply work, then adding those bonuses and play testing with mods would be one way to iterate which ideas were good on paper and which ones are terrible.

[Gurken Khan]

@AcanthisI'd like a neat fighting formation, but whenever my units were in formation I just wanted to turn it off immediately. So I don't even have the experience that I could give an as detailed feedback as yours.

[alre]

I'm not sure of what you mean. for Iphicrates' aura to work, units don't have to stay in the precise formation position. Note that if you leave some units that are in formation to fight, they will probably go out of place sometimes, but will come back to their places when they are done fighting.

PS: if you take units in formation and order them to attack a target, they will leave formation, so you have to simply move them to the desired fighting position. you may use h key to stop them when you want them to attack immediately. also mind their stance (aggressive, defensive, etc.).

Edited October 17, 2021 by alre

[maroder]

5 hours ago, alre said:

that's reasonable, but any opposing army could just retreat where there is not enough space for a formation to move, and thus be invulnerable to them, until they leave formation. from there in the narrow, they could keep showering projectiles at the formation.

kind of like in real life I would say. And you can attack them with ranged units while they retreat.

Edited October 17, 2021 by maroder

[alre]

7 minutes ago, maroder said:

kind of like in real life I would say. And you can attack them with ranged units while the retreat.

kind of. but pointless in the game.

[maroder]

12 minutes ago, alre said:

but pointless in the game.

Idk. I guess I would have to try it out to find out how it works) fits into the game.

[Dasaavawar]

On 16/10/2021 at 12:32 AM, Ceres said:

Would it make sense to have civs that have only 2 phases? Either they get the stuff from P3 already in P2, or they don't get (all) achievements from P3. Or could some civs take longer for certain things, only to be achieved in a P4? (which we currently don't have)

I was thinking in something similar for differentiating civs in three main axles of categorization:

 

"Barbarian civs" = Iberians, Gauls, Britons, Suebians, Xiongnu, Scythians, Huns, Yayois, Thracians, Dacians, Norse, Lusitanians, etc.

*"Medium civs" = Greeks of all sorts, Macedonians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Carthaginians, Kushites, Garamantians, Anglo-Saxons, Zapotecs, Judeans, etc.

*(medium sized, medium lifespan, Kingdoms, City-states, "halfway civs")

"Empire civs" =  Romans, Persians, Indians, Chineses, Franks, Byzantines, Umayyads, etc.

 

T1. Barbarian civs = No army camps or military colonies. Unlock civic centers in P2 (Cheaper civic centers). Can build storehouses, farms and farmsteads anywhere in the map. Also rely on small storehouses and resource wagons (for all resources). Few special buildings (No libraries). Can replenish their troops quickly (can train certain units like Celtic spearmen / Iberian spearmen / Scythian archers (and other equivalents, maybe naked fanatics for Gauls aswell) from houses after a certain technology). Don't require a technology for training women from houses. Can build docks anywhere in the map. Cheaper technologies. Small cheap houses that only grant 5 population bonus. Few mercenaries (and just ethnically / geographically related with them; Vettones, Batavians, Galatians, Celtiberians, Alans, Helvetii, Belgae celts, etc). Weak navy (more focused on transportation and confusing large ships) (more small cheap warships) (few exceptions like Norse). Tribal and more religious / healing technologies *based on Shamanism, Animism, Paganism, Tengrism, etc. Fortresses can just grant "Will to fight" technology and train heroes. More useful wonders. Few to no slaves.

T2. Medium civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3. Special buildings (Libraries, Gymnasium, Syssition, special temples, etc.). Medium sized houses that grant 10 population bonus. Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). More balanced navy (with some exceptions). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. More mercenaries. More mercenary technologies. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train the same units from military colonies and army camps after a certain technology). Have access to slaves.

T3. Empire civs = Unlock military colonies and army camps in P2. Unlock civic centers in P3 and after an specific technology that extends 20% of territory effects for all buildings (more expensive civic centers, but a larger civic centers with more population bonus). Same special buildings as T2. More special buildings; academies, courts, senates, palaces, etc. Medium sized houses like in T2. Have access to larger sized (but more expensive) apartments with 20 population bonus in P2. More political units (senators, ministers, ambassadors, royalty, etc). Can build docks only in terrains under territory influence (whether of military colonies, army camps or civic centers). Can build some small storehouses and resource wagons after P2 and after a certain technology. Have more technological requirements and more expensive technologies. But also access to a wider variety; more political, economical and diplomatic technologies. Even more mercenaries. More useful fortresses (same as T1, but can also train both the same champion units from Barracks and mercenaries. Offer other forms of bonuses). Wide use of slavery.

 

***Of course, not all civs selected in each of these types should match perfectly and rigidly each of those descriptions (for example, Athenians should have access to their Platonic Academy, Huns should have a wider and richer selection of mercenaries, Mauryans should continue with their worker elephants, etc.). And there should be variety even in civs of the same type. But those axles could work instead as a form of classification for the main nature of each civ.

[Freagarach]

2 hours ago, Dasaavawar said:

"Empire civs" =  Romans, Persians, Indians, Chineses, Franks, Byzantines, Umayyads, etc.

How did Macedon did _not_ end up there. ^^'

[Lion.Kanzen]

I think I would rename them from barbarian civs to Tribal.

Israel is a good example, from 12 tribes becomes to Monarchy. ( Monarchy Which was the superpower of its time in the 9th century)

The Greeks too even better from Clans to City States then to Alexander Empire.

[Acanthis]

17 hours ago, alre said:

I'm not sure of what you mean. for Iphicrates' aura to work, units don't have to stay in the precise formation position. Note that if you leave some units that are in formation to fight, they will probably go out of place sometimes, but will come back to their places when they are done fighting.

PS: if you take units in formation and order them to attack a target, they will leave formation, so you have to simply move them to the desired fighting position. you may use h key to stop them when you want them to attack immediately. also mind their stance (aggressive, defensive, etc.).

The disadvantage to Iphicrates' formation based bonus versus an aura based bonus, like +25% attack, is hard to overstate. You can't micro the units at all. Take any of the civs with a hero that gives an aura bonus and you can micromanage the units inside the aura to prevent overkill, focus attention where you want it- whatever you want- the bonus still applies. Do that with Athens and poof, suddenly no bonus for any of your troops. The easy, temporary fix, would be to give Iphicates an aura. 

As a side note, Themistocles' and Pericles' bonuses are either only useful for naval maps or barely at all in any scenario. The only hero with a decent bonus for most scenarios is gimped due to the formation based bonus. It is the only hero in the the entire game with such limitations.

This comes back to whether formations work or not. If formations are meant, as suggested here, to only position units before battle, then they aren't what I would consider to be a formation but rather something like "marching orders." Soldiers weren't arranged into formations simply as a way of organizing them on the way to battle.

Formations for battle should have a function once the battle commences. Dropping the formation entirely because you want the units to engage in a specific task doesn't make much sense to me. Elements of armies would be arranged in formations to achieve specific outcomes in battle. The phalanx and syntagma formations were critical to everything from how the individuals would be equipped to the expectations of how they would fight as a unit (including where the battle would take place). These were systems with functions.

Again, this is one reason why people just don't use formations- they don't work intuitively and often will create situations where your troops in formation struggle to even move into position to fight effectively while getting pummeled by enemy attack the entire time. It often only takes a few seconds of units struggling with the formation pathfinding to be destroyed by an enemy who is paying attention.

If it has to be the case that giving specific commands to a group of units that are set into a formation renders the formation setting null, then there needs to be an alternative way in which to order the formation into battle such that they can achieve a goal while maintaining the formation. An older RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2, had an interesting way to order formations into battle that might be worth looking at.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Acanthis

[alre]

37 minutes ago, Acanthis said:

Again, this is one reason why people just don't use formations- they don't work intuitively and often will create situations where your troops in formation struggle to even move into position to fight effectively while getting pummeled by enemy attack the entire time. It often only takes a few seconds of units struggling with the formation pathfinding to be destroyed by an enemy who is paying attention.

I feel that. In fact, I created a mod that aims at making formations less akward and more usable.

41 minutes ago, Acanthis said:

An older RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2, had an interesting way to order formations into battle that might be worth looking at.

Wasn't that a game where all units were always in formations (also soldiers wouldn't work or have an economic role)? It's hard to fit that into 0AD paradigm.

[Acanthis]

Indeed, they were, what I mean though is how you could dictate the way in which the formation would advance on the battlefield. This was particularly useful with the way the engine was set up to allow for cavalry charges and using collisions to a large degree. Not exactly 1:1, but there could be a way to use a combination of keys to change the behavior of the formation in battle. It would be similar to an attack move order. Probably easier to depict with simulated screenshots than in words.

Again that's really just in case, from a coding perspective, that a group of units has to default back to "no formation" if you give them direct orders to attack something in particular. As I said in my OP in this thread that's the danger of people who don't know coding making suggestions. It really is a lot easier for us to say how we would like things to happen when we don't understand whether it is possible or not.

[alre]

let me understand, you are proposing a sort of alternative move order (not quite simple move, not quite attack move) in which a formation moves forward until it gets in contact with the enemy, and then it stops to attack it?

seems nice I think, but for how 0AD works, I don't see any other use than with Iphicrates, and even for him, not so much. If formation patrolling worked better, one could use that instead.

could 0AD have soldiers moving and attacking in such ordered manner without that being penalising? I don't see how, but I honestly hope someone finds a nice way to make it.

[vv221]

  About formations:

On 17/10/2021 at 3:06 PM, alre said:

any opposing army could just retreat where there is not enough space for a formation to move, and thus be invulnerable to them, until they leave formation. from there in the narrow, they could keep showering projectiles at the formation.

It seems you see that as a situation to avoid in-game, but this is exactly the kind of thing I would love to encounter in my games: the choice of battlefield having a heavy influence on the battle outcome.

Forcing the opponent to follow you where they can not maintain the formation that is giving them the advantage sounds like an interesting tactical choice. Not following a fleeing army when you think they can lead you to an ambush is another interesting choice.

If improving formations support in 0 A.D. can be the source of such choices, I’m all in favour of it

[alre]

1 hour ago, vv221 said:

It seems you see that as a situation to avoid in-game, but this is exactly the kind of thing I would love to encounter in my games: the choice of battlefield having a heavy influence on the battle outcome.

I actually agree with that, I have sometimes whished here in the forum for some changes that would have that effect, but I don't believe formations are good for it. My point is that, being relatively slow, battalions would just never succeed in engaging any enemy, except for other battalions.

This kind of feature would be very hacky, and very very hard to implement, and what for? Just for some minority of battles being accepted in the open? I don't see it as a good idea.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

@Freagarach-willing, Delenda Est will have battalions by default... eventually. Then you'll have battalion vs. battalion battles instead of some weird mosh-pit hybrid. 

[LetswaveaBook]

On 19/05/2019 at 12:50 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

It likewise would be cool if Spartiates were available in the village or even the town phase to open up new offensive and defensive purposes for the unit; after all it's weird to have the male citizens only present at the late phase of the game.  

I think Sparta without Spartans is weird, but it is also weird to have only one champion unit and let it be available early.

So I would suggest something like the  Trophimoi, non-Spartan citiziens who received Spartan education. That would also be fitting for the team, as Spartan education is something that Sparta provided to loyal allied nobles. I would suggest to make the Trophimoi available as a team bonus (available at the CC once p3 is reached, no upgrades required). Both champions should be champion hoplites, but the difference with the Trophimoi could be that instead of the +25% HP, they get an small aura to inspire/drill/boost nearby spearman. That is also what Xanthippus of Carthage did in the first punic wars. Xenophon had sent children to the agoge and Clearchus of Sparta was a spartan mercenary helping the Persians.  The existance of Trophimoi also boosted probably the morale of the Spartan non-citizen hoplites, as it was a way to gain a better social class. So boosting Spartan CS hoplites would also be justified. I think having a champion with aura as a team bonus is more interactive than just some extra health.

Anyway, I think there are a lot of "ill-designed" team bonuses, that help with all strategies but nothing in particular. Also, it is a pity to me that the Iberian&roman team bonuses are more impactful than most regular bonuses.

[alre]

14 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think Sparta without Spartans is weird, but it is also weird to have only one champion unit and let it be available early.

why? wouldn't it also be weird to have two champios that are both hoplites? 

[LetswaveaBook]

43 minutes ago, alre said:

why? wouldn't it also be weird to have two champios that are both hoplites? 

That's true, but I guess two would be better than one

[Micfild]

On 18/10/2021 at 3:53 PM, alre said:

My point is that, being relatively slow, battalions would just never succeed in engaging any enemy, except for other battalions

Maybe. I agree that infantry battalions would be slow and therefore not very good at pursuing the enemy. But if we consider battalions to be stronger (in some way) to just a bunch of disorganized units, then we can use those battalions to secure specific locations or areas of interest in the map (either resource rich areas or choke points). Also, a battalion of horses should still be pretty fast regardless.