60 replies to this topic

[Pureon]

gudo, on 24 June 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Eh, could work. Might be a bit annoying to have to click three times to get to the "previous" stance.

Left click for back, right click for forward.

[historic_bruno]

I think the stance icons should always be shown, if possible. Either lined up next to the unit portrait or grouped with the formation panel (there's empty space there, too).

[Mythos_Ruler]

historic_bruno, on 24 June 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

I think the stance icons should always be shown, if possible. Either lined up next to the unit portrait or grouped with the formation panel (there's empty space there, too).

This is possible (grouped with the formations), and one idea I had considered. Have to take a look at the formations to make sure there isn't an instance where we need the whole panel to show all the formations. If there is never an instance where the bottom row is taken, then let's put them there.

[chaosislife]

With the formations is probably best since i just thought of another problem, how to set up the stances to work with a selection of units. It would be a horrible pain to have to set each units stance individually, especially if you wanted to switch an entire platoons stance just before they engage the enemy.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yes, of course you will be able to change the stance of multiple units at once.

[ribez]

historic_bruno, on 24 June 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

I think the stance icons should always be shown, if possible. Either lined up next to the unit portrait or grouped with the formation panel (there's empty space there, too).

i agree with you

[historic_bruno]

On second thought, it can't go next to the unit portrait because when you have groups of many units selected that space can fill up (the individual unit info disappears as well, so we'd have to change that).

[chaosislife]

Any chance of getting stances for siege units, in particular telling them to stand still?

[Pedro Falcão]

About the passive instance, i can say that in Age of Empires it was used by catapults and bombard cannons: when they attack, they can injury your own troops, so putting them in a state of no attack is essencial to save troops. If in 0A.D. the catapults cannot injury friendly troops, then i have to agree that no-attacking is useless, but if they do, then we got to find a solution for this, uh?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Pedro Falcão, on 12 July 2011 - 02:05 AM, said:

About the passive instance, i can say that in Age of Empires it was used by catapults and bombard cannons: when they attack, they can injury your own troops, so putting them in a state of no attack is essencial to save troops. If in 0A.D. the catapults cannot injury friendly troops, then i have to agree that no-attacking is useless, but if they do, then we got to find a solution for this, uh?

If we include splash damage/friendly fire, then they would act as siege onagers acted in AOK:The Conquerors -- they would not auto-fire when friendly troops are in the way (they would fire if tasked to do so, though). No need for "passive stance" to be manually selected in this case.

[chaosislife]

I'm mostly thinking about the ability to post siege weapons in defensive positions during battle so I don't have to have dedicated towers out in a place where they'll be unnecessary after awhile. Tho I think it could also be a good idea for rams since they'd be the only part of an army I couldn't tell to stand still while waiting to "strike at dawn" or something so the rams could very easily go haring off across the map after a woman or a decoy unit. This would screw up my plans an awful lot, especially since they'd likely follow said unit directly back to the enemy camp and get themselves destroyed.

[Mythos_Ruler]

chaosislife, on 12 July 2011 - 02:41 AM, said:

I'm mostly thinking about the ability to post siege weapons in defensive positions during battle so I don't have to have dedicated towers out in a place where they'll be unnecessary after awhile. Tho I think it could also be a good idea for rams since they'd be the only part of an army I couldn't tell to stand still while waiting to "strike at dawn" or something so the rams could very easily go haring off across the map after a woman or a decoy unit. This would screw up my plans an awful lot, especially since they'd likely follow said unit directly back to the enemy camp and get themselves destroyed.

In that case you'd probably use "Stand Ground." You would want them to fight back if discovered and attacked, right?

[chaosislife]

Mythos_Ruler, on 12 July 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:

In that case you'd probably use "Stand Ground." You would want them to fight back if discovered and attacked, right?

Yes, if there was a way to set their stances (normally) that is. There is a way to do it if they're part of a group but this assumes that every unit in the group should operate under the same stance, which might not be the best idea. Some units might work best on violent while others be on stand ground. It also assumes that there would be other units in the group running next to the rams. I might like to send my rams from one side and my infantry from another. Or what I've been doing which is just to send a group made up of a couple helepoli and five rams to slaughter the enemy's army and then crush their base. I really need to play against actual people instead of torturing jubot.

[Mythos_Ruler]

chaosislife, on 12 July 2011 - 04:15 AM, said:

Yes, if there was a way to set their stances (normally) that is. There is a way to do it if they're part of a group but this assumes that every unit in the group should operate under the same stance, which might not be the best idea. Some units might work best on violent while others be on stand ground. It also assumes that there would be other units in the group running next to the rams. I might like to send my rams from one side and my infantry from another. Or what I've been doing which is just to send a group made up of a couple helepoli and five rams to slaughter the enemy's army and then crush their base. I really need to play against actual people instead of torturing jubot.

I think it would be cool to be able to set the 'default' stances of different types of units even before a match. You could even save these under different presets. Call them "Play Styles" and bundle them with other pre-configurable things too, like hotkey sets, etc.

[asmartgoat]

What about patrol, like in AOM.
Basically you hit patrol, then a point on the map and they walk to and from this point, attacking any enemies on the way.

Just a suggestion

[Mythos_Ruler]

asmartgoat, on 13 July 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

What about patrol, like in AOM.
Basically you hit patrol, then a point on the map and they walk to and from this point, attacking any enemies on the way.

Just a suggestion

I think that would be a button beneath the unit portrait. There's also a little icon already committed for it.

[Pedro Falcão]

I remember of using a stance to divide equally a group in two. The tooltip of the stance said it was to surround enemies, attacking at the flanks, but i used it to divide the army as well, half guarding the city, half attacking the enemy. Any plans of this in 0A.D.?

[historic_bruno]

Pedro Falcão, on 17 July 2011 - 08:12 PM, said:

I remember of using a stance to divide equally a group in two. The tooltip of the stance said it was to surround enemies, attacking at the flanks, but i used it to divide the army as well, half guarding the city, half attacking the enemy. Any plans of this in 0A.D.?

That sounds like the flank formation, we do have that

[JuliusColtranePille]

it would be a really big gameplay-enhancement if stances, positions on the battlefield, being attacked from behind/flank/front, losing or keeping an essential stance/formation (keeping the phalanx or losing it)
count a lot during a battle. since this played a major role in ancient warfare it would depict ancient battles and tactics realistically.

i guess the engine behind that would cause a lot of work and eventually it would possibly make the gameplay more difficult but thus also more intriguing.

in how far are things mentioned above planned to be implemented?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

For the most part, yes. The only thing of the above never mentioned would be the breaking of formation on heavy impact, but it is extremely likely to be implemented I think.