Design Document Proposal

[Nullus]

As mentioned at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/77438-looking-back-on-the-balancing-strategy/, a new design document is required. This is my proposal for a design document. If the community approves of this, it could be adopted and design documents could be revised for the civilisations. This is a design for the general gameplay, not for any civilisations. Most elements will remain the same, I've only mentioned elements that could change or which need to be clearly defined. 

All features which require mechanics not yet added to the game are highlighted in red.

  Reveal hidden contents

Mechanics

Territory

Territory will be a display of the land under the control of a player. Most buildings will only be constructable within a player’s territory. Unless buildings are built within controlled territory, they will slowly lose their loyalty and convert to Gaia or to the player who controls the surrounding territory. Controlling territory will be very important to most civilizations; more important for defensive civilizations, less important for aggressive civilizations. All buildings will have a territory influence, military and civic buildings will have the largest influence. All civic buildings will have a territory root; which means that adjoining territory will not lose its loyalty.

Gaia

Gaia will be a neutral player, representing nature and the native inhabitants of a map. It will be hostile toward all players. Buildings not connected to a territory root will decay to Gaia’s control. On some maps, there will be villages under Gaia’s control. These can be captured or destroyed by the players. Ideally, these villages would contain some mercenary camps.

New Mechanics

Guard area

Players will be able to order units to guard a selected circular area. The units will automatically target any enemy units that enter the area. This will apply to all types of units, whether ranged or melee, although it will probably be more useful for ranged units.

Charging/Ramming

Units will be able to charge for a limited amount of time. As they charge, their energy will deplete. When they remain idle, they will regain their charging energy. While charging, they will move significantly more quickly, and have a significantly longer deceleration and turn time. Their first attack will deal more damage. Ships will have a ramming attack using the same mechanism, which will be the only attack the ships themselves have.

Multiple Attacks

Some units and structures will have the ability to perform multiple attacks, both ranged and melee. Units automatically switch their attacks based on which attack does more damage to the target at the given range.

Shared control

Different players will be able to share control of units. The units will obey whichever order was most recently given by either player. This only works between allies, and the shared control can be ended by either player. When shared control is ended, the unit goes back to its owner’s control.

Espionage

Players will be able to select and bribe other players’ human units, at varying prices and with varying likelihoods of success. If the bribe fails, the other player is alerted. Stronger military units will be harder and more expensive to bribe. The bribe will only last a certain amount of time. The bribe will give the two players shared control over the unit, but not the ability to attack either. The shared control will be hidden to the player whose unit was bribed. Units from all players will be bribable, whatever their diplomatic status. If garrisoned in a building, the spy will be able to see the production and research queue.

Morale (Optional)

All units would have morale, which affects how well they perform their tasks. Units with high morale would fight well, but with low morale they would fight poorly, or even become uncontrollable and flee. The death of nearby allied troops would decrease morale, and the death of nearby enemies would increase morale. Auras from other units, such as heroes, could increase or decrease morale.

Units

Melee Units

Melee units will have a short attack range, and engage the enemy in close combat. They will generally have higher armor and stronger attacks. They will form the main fighting force of an army. They will be moderately difficult to bribe.

Ranged Units

Ranged will units have similar damage values to melee troops, but can fire from a varying range. This makes them more useful for harassment, and at targeting remote groups of enemies from behind battle lines. They will be countered by cavalry, which can close the distance to them quickly. Most ranged troops will have a secondary melee attack, but this will be much less powerful than a dedicated melee soldiers attack. They will be moderately difficult to bribe.

Cavalry

Cavalry will be fast units with higher health. They will be unable to gather any resources but meat, and will not be able to construct buildings. They are most useful for attacking ranged units, for raiding, and for harassment. They will be countered by spearmen and pikemen

Champions

Champions will be units with higher health and armor, and a significantly stronger attack. They will be unable to perform any economic activities or construct or repair buildings. They will have higher costs, but will be more cost-effective in combat than citizen soldiers. They will be difficult to bribe.

Heroes

Heroes will be famous figures from a civilization’s history. They will have much higher health, armor, and attack than other units. They will have auras that can benefit their own troops or harm the enemy’s troops. They will be very difficult to bribe.

Mercenaries

Mercenaries will have a very short training time and no training cost, but will require wages, which creates a constant drain of metal. If the wages cannot be paid, the units will turn to gaia. They will be useful for quick conquests, or as emergency troops, but a handicap to keep in peace. They cannot be ordered to destroy themselves, but they can be disowned, in which case they become uncontrollable, but neutral. To use them effectively, a large supply or constant income of metal will be necessary. Every civilization should have access to at least one mercenary. They can be trained by any civilization, so if a structure that trains mercenaries is captured, any civilization can train the mercenaries from the captured building. Mercenaries cannot gather resources, but can construct buildings. They will be easy to bribe.

Priests/Healers

Priests will be trained from temples, and can heal wounded organic units. Units being healed cannot fight. Priests will provide an aura of increased fighting strength, but not increased health. If a morale system is implemented, they would also increase the morale of nearby units. They will be difficult to bribe.

Elephants

Elephants will be powerful anti-melee units, but will be countered by ranged troops. They will be approximately as fast as other melee units, but will have a significantly faster charge. They will have slower turn and acceleration times than other troops, making them easier to outmaneuver. They will have a very strong crush and hack attack, with area damage

Rams

Rams will be armored melee siege units, powerful against buildings, but unable to attack organic units or fields. They are vulnerable to crush damage, but well armored against other attacks.

Catapults

Catapults will be ranged siege units, powerful against buildings and rams, but will low accuracy against organic units. They will be vulnerable to military units of all types, and will have a minimum range. They must be guarded, but will be able to attack most defensive buildings without entering their attack range. They will also be usable to defensively destroy ships and rams.

Bolt Shooters

Bolt shooters will be ranged siege units, powerful against units, but with low damage against buildings. They will be vulnerable to military units of all types, and will have no minimum range. They will automatically target the units with the greatest number of health points, and will be able to kill most units with one shot. They will be quite accurate, but have a low rate of fire. They will have linear area damage, allowing them to hit multiple units at once.

Spearmen

Spearmen will usually be the basic melee troop, armed with spears. They will have moderate damage, armor, and speed, and will be a strong counter against cavalry. They will be countered by pikemen.

Swordsmen

Swordsmen will be melee troops armed with swords. They will have moderate damage, armor, and speed, and a strong attack against spearmen.

Pikemen

Pikemen will be melee troops armed with pikes. They will have low damage, high armor, low speed, and a long range with their pikes, allowing multiple pikemen to attack a single target. Masses of pikes should be very difficult to destroy. They will be a strong counter against cavalry.

Skirmishers

Skirmishers will be ranged units armed with javelins. They will have a low range, high damage, moderate rate of fire, and moderate accuracy.

Slingers

Slingers will be ranged units armed with slings. They will have medium range, low damage, moderate rate of fire, and low accuracy. They will cost some additional stone.

Archers

Archers will be ranged units armed with bows and arrows. They will have high range, moderate damage, high rate of fire, and low accuracy.

Crossbowmen

Crossbowmen will be ranged units armed with crossbows. They will have medium range, high accuracy, low damage, and a high rate of fire.

Ships

Most military ships will have a ramming attack, which will be their only attack. They can garrison units, and ranged units will be stationed on their decks. These ranged units will be able to attack other units from their positions. Larger ships will be able to station catapults or bolt shooters on their decks, to give them a stronger attack. Ships without any crew left cannot move, and can be captured.

Structures

Fortresses

Fortresses will be powerful defensive buildings with a territory root. For civilizations with artillery, they will be able to upgrade to station bolt shooters. They will be able to train infantry troops.

Artillery Towers

Artillery towers will be defensive towers armed with artillery. They will have a low rate of fire, but high damage. Catapult towers will be useful against rams, and bolt towers will be useful against champions and heroes. They will be vulnerable to groups of infantry. They will have a higher minimum range than defense towers.

Defense towers

Defense towers will be defensive towers armed with arrows. They will initially have a minimum range, but with the “Murder holes” upgrade, they will gain a secondary, short range attack, falling rocks. This will be effective against soldiers, and, with a further “Heavy stones” upgrade, able to do some damage against rams.

Counters

All classes of units will have abilities which make them useful as counters against other types of units. All Civilisations will have at least one unit available to counter every other class of unit.

General:

Ranged > Melee > Cavalry > Ranged

Melee:

Swordsmen > Pikemen and Spearmen

Cavalry:

Ranged cavalry > Melee troops (When kiting) > Melee Cavalry > Ranged Cavalry

Melee cavalry > Ranged troops > Melee troops (When kiting) > Melee cavalry

Defenses:

Infantry and cavalry > Siege units > Defensive Buildings > Infantry and cavalry

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by Nullus
ChronA's comments

[ChronA]

I suggest that a more in depth discussion of counter relationships for each unit type and any unusual information about attack interactions or composition synergies/anti-synergies should be added. E.g. for the spearman line:

Spearmen will usually be the basic melee troop, armed with spears. They will have moderate damage, armor, and speed, and a strong attack bonus against cavalry. They will have a slightly longer attack range than sword units [interaction quirk] and therefore benefit more from fighting in dense formations than swordsmen [synergy]. They should decisively lose to an equal value of pikes in dense formation fighting [situational counter]. In equal value comparisons, Spearmen should effectively counter sword cavalry, spear cavalry, rams, catapults, and artillery towers. They should be countered by elephants, swordsmen, skirmishers, slingers, archers, crossbowmen, javelin cavalry, archer cavalry, bolt shooters, and fortresses.

(note: when you write it up this way, the spearman line looks pretty bad huh?)

Other suggestions:

I think the Mechanics section needs to be filled out with more information about civ phases, techs, resource harvesting, production, and all that jazz. I'm sure that was the intent already for that section but its worth making explicit. 

I would also add a separate section after the Units & Structures to cleanly summarize of the key counter cycles:

Counter Cycle Design

The tactics of combat engagements will be characterized by the following type-counter relationships:
melee cavalry > ranged infantry > spearmen > melee cavalry
ranged cavalry > swordsmen, spearmen > melee cavalry > infantry archers > ranged cavalry
[etc...]

And lastly, I would add a section about civ design principles. This should lay out the logic of designing a multiplayer-viable civ, the temporal and geographic bound of the game's representation, maybe list some civilizations. Others with a stronger sense of the game's vision can opine on what to say here. The one thing I would urge you to put in writing is that Every civilization will have access to at least one viable counter to every established unit type. While that sounds completely obvious, I think it is important to stress because it runs counter to the intuitive civ development methodology the game is built around. We're not starting with the question "what would be a fun faction concept to play with." We are starting with real civilizations and trying to represent them in the game. But real civilizations were not balanced. They did not always have answers to every military doctrine. When they met a doctrine they could not deal with they either changed their own identity or ceased to exist, which makes it hard to to produce iconic, accurate, and balanced representations.

 

Make these changes and I think you will have a good format and foundation to build from. Then the real work of debating about design and balance philosophy can begin.

[Outis]

If we want to vote and propose changes, then I propose to do so on smaller chuncks. Arguments and agreement will be easier to track.

[Nullus]

  On 24/04/2022 at 1:01 PM, ChronA said:

I suggest that a more in depth discussion of counter relationships for each unit type and any unusual information about attack interactions or composition synergies/anti-synergies should be added.

Expand  

This would be good, yes. I'll update the proposal to reflect this.

  On 24/04/2022 at 1:01 PM, ChronA said:

I think the Mechanics section needs to be filled out with more information about civ phases, techs, resource harvesting, production, and all that jazz. I'm sure that was the intent already for that section but its worth making explicit. 

Expand  

The eventual design document should include this, certainly. However, for this proposal I'm only listing any features that I think should be changed or which I think need to clarified.

  On 24/04/2022 at 1:01 PM, ChronA said:

And lastly, I would add a section about civ design principles. This should lay out the logic of designing a multiplayer-viable civ, the temporal and geographic bound of the game's representation, maybe list some civilizations. Others with a stronger sense of the game's vision can opine on what to say here. The one thing I would urge you to put in writing is that Every civilization will have access to at least one viable counter to every established unit type. While that sounds completely obvious, I think it is important to stress because it runs counter to the intuitive civ development methodology the game is built around. We're not starting with the question "what would be a fun faction concept to play with." We are starting with real civilizations and trying to represent them in the game. But real civilizations were not balanced. They did not always have answers to every military doctrine. When they met a doctrine they could not deal with they either changed their own identity or ceased to exist, which makes it hard to to produce iconic, accurate, and balanced representations.

Expand  

This sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure if it really fits in the general design document. This could be done along with the pages for the individual civilisations, but I think the overall design document should describe how the game should play in general, not the specifics of civilisation design. I will add the information about viable counters, thank you.

  On 24/04/2022 at 4:14 PM, Outis said:

If we want to vote and propose changes, then I propose to do so on smaller chuncks. Arguments and agreement will be easier to track.

Expand  

Perhaps, but I'd like to keep this issue as centralised as possible for now. I have tried to avoid adding anything too controversial, so I don't think that should be too much of an issue at the moment.

[Freagarach]

Thank you for your effort on this!

I must say this Design Document rather looks like an result of one? It looks more as an implementation of a design than a design itself? But I could be mistaken.

For a DD I would expect more something along the lines of the tail of this post:

 

[Nullus]

  On 25/04/2022 at 5:18 AM, Freagarach said:

I must say this Design Document rather looks like an result of one? It looks more as an implementation of a design than a design itself? But I could be mistaken.

For a DD I would expect more something along the lines of the tail of this post:

Expand  

I'm not sure if we have the same understanding of what the design document should be. What I meant by the term was a document that describes how how the game should play. Basically, I meant a set of goals for the design, not a description of how the design itself should be performed.

[ChronA]

IMO, what makes a good design document is that the design document + the technical documentation of the engine and and any other development tool + any good encyclopedia should give enough information for any competent developer to deliver the completed product.

Yes, that does not usually require specifying exact unit stats or civilizations to include, but that is because this information is implied by the more general descriptions of the gameplay and the scope of the project given by the design doc. On the other hand though sometimes is is necessary (or maybe a better word is proper) to get into specifics. The most useful thing the design doc can do is let you detect problems before you go to the trouble of actually writing code. That is easier to do when systems are described directly. (This is why I suggest describing counter cycles in detail, we know that this is a hard thing to get right. Being specific about them makes it easier to to spot any contradictions and logic holes before someone has to start interpreting the intent into working code. Their job is hard enough already.) 

[alre]

you are right when you say that clear and throughout design is a good thing when developing software. this is something 0AD lacks. but don't let you be distracted by it.

that level of design comes right before implementation, and should be the product of the dialogue between the developers who are currently working on that issue, and the community (in a corporate setting, that would be called customer oriented - also consider the Agile statement that working software is more important than comprehensive documentation, and that responding to change is more important than following a plan). if you put design too much before development, than you are building on quicksand: even the most polished design may prove ineffective or brocken in the end, for whatever reason you couldn't foresee.

a design document should indeed look much more alike what hyperion proposed, and finally, it would be very useful if really adopted by the team and its management: I can see here that people are still confused about what civ differentiation should achieve, what level of micro should be required, how good is rock-paper-scissors design, what's should it be the purpose of territory, what level of snowballing is best, why some tactics are considerd abusive and some aren't, etc...