28 replies to this topic

[billt79]

These features would be nice, if you were on a map with islands, so once you have destroyed the enemy, tidying them up after is easier =p the scouting option would be good too. Also UPnP would be good, because on older routers with no port mapping functionality the games multiplayer function would work and it saves the hassle of mapping ports in the first place.

Edited by billt79, 22 April 2012 - 11:31 PM.

[Mythos_Ruler]

A scouting ability is something we want, yeah. A S&D ability is something I've never considered. Maybe we'll think about that one.

[quantumstate]

Search and destroy sounds interesting. So it would work like scouting but with attacking every enemy that got into the line of sight?

[billt79]

yeah, its a feature from empire earth 2, a very useful one aswell.

[Tutle]

quantumstate, on 22 April 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Search and destroy sounds interesting. So it would work like scouting but with attacking every enemy that got into the line of sight?

+1
Can be annoying for very large maps to have to follow a cavalry unit in order to find the remaining enemy workers.

[fcxSanya]

quantumstate, on 22 April 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Search and destroy sounds interesting. So it would work like scouting but with attacking every enemy that got into the line of sight?

Maybe this can be implemented just as 'explore' command affected by the stance system. I.e. when unit is exploring and have 'ignore enemies' stance ('standground' or whatever it called) it is just exploring; but if it explore and have more aggressive stance it should try to kill all enemies which it see and then proceed exploring if survived.

[feneur]

fcxSanya, on 23 April 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Maybe this can be implemented just as 'explore' command affected by the stance system. I.e. when unit is exploring and have 'ignore enemies' stance ('standground' or whatever it called) it is just exploring; but if it explore and have more aggressive stance it should try to kill all enemies which it see and then proceed exploring if survived.

I agree No reason to complicate things more than necessary imho Maybe we could display a dialog the first time a user clicks the explore button telling them the difference between exploring in passive/defensive/aggressive etc (though stand ground should probably not have any effect as it's usually used to have the units remain in place (though ranged units can still attack)).

[fcxSanya]

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Maybe we could display a dialog the first time a user clicks the explore button telling them the difference between exploring in passive/defensive/aggressive etc.

This also can go into the tooltip in some compact form, like 'Explore the map. If unit stance is aggressive also attack enemies in the field of view.'

[FeXoR]

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

I agree No reason to complicate things more than necessary imho Maybe we could display a dialog the first time a user clicks the explore button telling them the difference between exploring in passive/defensive/aggressive etc (though stand ground should probably not have any effect as it's usually used to have the units remain in place (though ranged units can still attack)).

Nothing personal (indeed I like your calm comments) but "No reason to complicate things more than necessary"?


If you insist on having stances I agree. I really think it will be really, really hard to make the units perform their work well though. There will be lots of possible combinations of stances, orders and formations and even different unit types may require different behavior to make sense (like foot melee versus mounted ranged with min. range).
My latest comment to this issue can be read here.

[Mythos_Ruler]

FeXoR, on 23 April 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Nothing personal (indeed I like your calm comments) but "No reason to complicate things more than necessary"?

He's saying if something can be done with existing features, then there might not be a need to make up a whole new feature. Auto-Scout+Aggressive stance would be exactly the same as a "Search & Destroy" feature. But then again, it would probably be rather easy to make a new "search & destroy" button that just combines auto-scout, attack-move (once we have it), and aggressive stance.

[feneur]

FeXoR, on 23 April 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Nothing personal (indeed I like your calm comments) but "No reason to complicate things more than necessary"?


If you insist on having stances I agree. I really think it will be really, really hard to make the units perform their work well though. There will be lots of possible combinations of stances, orders and formations and even different unit types may require different behavior to make sense (like foot melee versus mounted ranged with min. range).
My latest comment to this issue can be read here.

There's no reason to complain about the future of a feature based on the present of another =) That said, perhaps implementing it separately might be easier. However, we already have stances, so however search and destroy/auto-explore is implemented it will have to take them into account in one way or another (if only to ignore them ). Search-and-destroy/auto-explore shouldn't need to take player orders into account as they should cancel out previous orders and later orders should cancel search-and-destroy/auto-explore. I wouldn't call it different behaviour for different unit types (most of it at least), part should be user controlled (you should never try and use infantry to catch up with cavalry for example), part should be things like ranges. And the part which is behaviour would have to be fixed for normal stances use anyway Hmm, looking at your comment again I guess you might have been talking about stances apart from search-and-destroy/auto-explore all the time

Ah well, either way, I still think there is a value for stances. I think there might be reason to differentiate melee infantry/ranged infantry/cavalry speed even more though running should change a bit once we have it, that way cavalry should be able to get close enough to fleeing infantry units etc. And I don't think the unit type issues are mostly related to stances anyway. Perhaps part of the issue is that we try to have units be too exact? I.e. if archers would fire even if it's not 100% sure they would hit their target it's probably more likely they will actually hit something than if they're moving around to get to where they'd perfectly hit the unit they're trying to hit. Either way I'm almost starting to lean towards Michaels old pet idea of using battalions for everything =) Most of the unit behavior issues seems to stem from the the way individual units interact

[FeXoR]

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

There's no reason to complain about the future of a feature based on the present of another

In general I really like the idea of auto explore/search and destroy depending on stances. Perhaps I should have said that in the first place

But only if I cannot persuade you to drop stances... And I think that is a sure thing.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Search-and-destroy/auto-explore shouldn't need to take player orders into account as they should cancel out previous orders and later orders should cancel search-and-destroy/auto-explore.

I think auto explore/search and destroy should be continued after units auto attacked something due to an offensive stance.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Hmm, looking at your comment again I guess you might have been talking about stances apart from search-and-destroy/auto-explore all the time

I just meant that it seams to be enough chaos with the present units behavior so it may not be wise to add a new feature for unit behavior before the present ones are under control.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I.e. if archers would fire even if it's not 100% sure they would hit their target it's probably more likely they will actually hit something than if they're moving around to get to where they'd perfectly hit the unit they're trying to hit.

Exactly! Units in range -> Fire! Target runs away but still a target in range -> Change target and fire! Though I don't get what that has to do with 'being exact'... It has something to do with maxing the damage output and after units focus on firing instead of running here and there than damage bonus and armor can be taken in account. If no one deals damage the unit behavior is obviously not that effective.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Either way I'm almost starting to lean towards Michaels old pet idea of using battalions for everything =) Most of the unit behavior issues seems to stem from the the way individual units interact

I don't really know what this would be... If it's similar to armies in 'The battle for middle earth' plz. don't! It reduces the damage dealt and the players influence on the units further.

Lion.Kanzen, on 23 April 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

hmm i don't care if the explored will die, in EE can happens a lot of times, the Scout must be sacrificed if its killed that means the zone of map that is dangerous.

I have no problems with a scout can be killed. I have a problem that the scout don't listen to my orders that would save him!

Edited by FeXoR, 01 May 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[FeXoR]

Lion.Kanzen, on 23 April 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

all military units dont obey orders if they are under attack.

They don't go into a save building because they are under attack?

A ranged unit will not attack and maybe kill the melee fighter charging him?

A melee fighter will not hit the enemy unit standing right next to him but try to reach an archer attacking him though he has to go through a battalion of enemies for that?

When giving the retreat order a unit far away from the enemy will not backup the retreat of his battalion but charge back into the enemy?

Sorry but I doubt that. It's not so much about not following the orders. If they would do something more effective than I have told them everything would be fine and I'd say 'Whow!, really nice!'. But its horrible inefficient. All of the units behavior. Starting with gathering: If a source runs out they don't seek the source nearest to the building they bring the resources to but nearest to them at the time the old source runs out... and wind up in enemy territory... 

Edited by FeXoR, 23 April 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[FeXoR]

Lion.Kanzen, on 23 April 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Yes they are close to death, but i order to garrison into temple, but they don't go. RAM are same, they dont go into save to repair and fight even units.
other occasionally bug are when melee units don't want attack to civ centre they marching but after they go to starting position.

Yes, 1st and 2nd (not going into temple/save location) are because of the default aggressive stance. It's not a bug, it is meant to be like that by default (and I don't think thats a good idea). You can change the stance to defensive or passive for better behavior in this situation (but that doesn't really mean they will go there as fast as possible).

I didn't get the last part though, sorry...

Edited by FeXoR, 23 April 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[feneur]

Quote

Quote

Search-and-destroy/auto-explore shouldn't need to take player orders into account as they should cancel out previous orders and later orders should cancel search-and-destroy/auto-explore.

I think auto explore/search and destroy should be continued after units auto attacked something due to an offensive stance.

Yeah, but that's not a player order But rather an automatic order from the explore/search-and-destroy system My point was rather that player orders would not have to be taken into consideration for the auto explore/S&D system

Quote

I don't really know what this would be... If it's similar to armies in 'The battle for middle earth' plz. don't! It reduces the damage dealt and the players influence on the units further.

Something like this yeah =) But player influence is the issue here =) I do think it's nice to retain some of that though, but the final implementation of formations is likely to be a bit more like that. Right now formations is more like "these units move around kinda close to each other" and doesn't provide much benefit/effect of any sort.

Either way I think at least part of the problem (apart from the absence of a priorities system - that would prioritize direct player orders over stance effects etc) is that melee infantry is too fast =) At least as far as I understand it, historically speaking melee infantry shouldn't really be able to even get close to moving ranged infantry (apart from the units which are both melee/ranged), but rather have enough armor to withstand quite a few ranged attacks, to hunt down ranged infantry cavalry should be used.

Quote

They don't go into a save building because they are under attack?

I would say all player orders apart from move orders should completely ignore stances (even if they include moving to e.g. a building to garrison there).

Quote

A ranged unit will not attack and maybe kill the melee fighter charging him?

Maybe. Most of the time they should run to cover though, and melee units shouldn't be much use in fighting them in the first place. =) Perhaps a (minor/part of a) fix for the issues would be to make them less likely to turn to move again, i.e. run to max range, stay and attack until the enemy gets into min range, rinse and repeat

Quote

A melee fighter will not hit the enemy unit standing right next to him but try to reach an archer attacking him though he has to go through a battalion of enemies for that?

It should not try to attack the archer So there we agree for sure

Quote

When giving the retreat order a unit far away from the enemy will not backup the retreat of his battalion but charge back into the enemy?

That depends on how the groups/formations are implemented, currently they're explicitly tied to each other and a move order for a group of unit first means they have to form up into formation (and it would probably be a pain to have the formation system try to find out whether there are enemy units nearby and thus have the formation form up later). For most cases it should work fine though, so perhaps it would be wiser to add a "flee" command, where they would move directly to a safe spot? (Probably easiest to have the user set a spot rather than the game trying to find out where it's safe to go =) )

Quote

Sorry but I doubt that. It's not so much about not following the orders. If they would do something more effective than I have told them everything would be fine and I'd say 'Whow!, really nice!'. But its horrible inefficient. All of the units behavior. Starting with gathering: If a source runs out they don't seek the source nearest to the building they bring the resources to but nearest to them at the time the old source runs out... and wind up in enemy territory...

This should be fixed yeah

Quote

I just meant that it seams to be enough chaos with the present units behavior so it may not be wise to add a new feature for unit behavior before the present ones are under control.

It should be independent on unit behavior in terms of implementation, but either way, there's no reason it can't wait until unit behavior has been improved I'm trying to discuss the final behavior, not how things are now (And I'm probably confusing myself over all the replies so if something is unclear blame it on me and ask what I mean rather than assume I mean something weird )

[FeXoR]

To billt79: Sorry that I tore everything apart here . Your Idea is good! It helps with finding the last peasant of an otherwise defeated enemy as well.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

And I'm probably confusing myself over all the replies so if something is unclear blame it on me and ask what I mean rather than assume I mean something weird

I have problems to get everything straight in multi reply posts, too Sorry if I did assume something that wasn't meant, I tend to do that

But I fear the question I have to ask here is: Why do you want stances at all? What are you expecting from them?

I never was thankful for stances in any game I played. If AoE II had attack-move instead of stances it would have been better IMO.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Right now formations is more like "these units move around kinda close to each other" and doesn't provide much benefit/effect of any sort.

I'm sorry. but it isn't like that. If the aim of the formations or it's actual state would be as you say to hold the units together as a bunch it would be a good thing because no single unit runs into the enemy and gets killed before the battle really started. That I would call it a 'glue' functionality that does not need a predefined shape at all. Warcraft 3 had it and I sometimes used it though you better turn it off if you flee. It's more like birds flying together but the shape changes. Mainly the unit closest to the target walks calm and the unit far away hastes to keep up with the others. To have such thing as an option (!) would be nice to have.

But as is now units move to a somehow defined center (center of mass? Am I assuming something here ) to shape a specific form. So it seams (!) to me that its not a gameplay feature at all... it's a visual feature or a feature simulating massive troop movement as is was back then and that would be a style feature IMO. And that's where we are back to the starting post of this topic.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Yeah, but that's not a player order But rather an automatic order from the explore/search-and-destroy system My point was rather that player orders would not have to be taken into consideration for the auto explore/S&D system

Well, I don't agree. For me there are only two options: 1: A player gave the order 2: The unit was idle and the unit AI took control over the unit.

And since the player clicked the button its a player command from my point of view.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

I would say all player orders apart from move orders should completely ignore stances (even if they include moving to e.g. a building to garrison there).

I think stances shouldn't interact with any player given orders. It should be an 'AI configuration' option exclusively. And in this case I ask myself: Why not make a unit AI capable of handling most situations well instead of adding multiple unit AI behaviors with each working well in less situations? That would be something like aggressive but before moving checking if any easier to reach target is present (for example the unit right next to the fleeing one). So I ask you to at least add a stance that acts as I suggested. Let the player decide what he likes most.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

That depends on how the groups/formations are implemented, currently they're explicitly tied to each other and a move order for a group of unit first means they have to form up into formation (and it would probably be a pain to have the formation system try to find out whether there are enemy units nearby and thus have the formation form up later). For most cases it should work fine though, so perhaps it would be wiser to add a "flee" command, where they would move directly to a safe spot? (Probably easiest to have the user set a spot rather than the game trying to find out where it's safe to go =) )

Thats easy! Add a formation that applies the order to every unit separately: Something like a 'non-formation formation' . It's about the same as with the stances: Please, please add it and let the player decide.


That ranged foot units are in general faster than melee foot units makes sense since they wore less armor and no shield. Still I think ranged can (but don't have to) attack close targets. I haven't fully made up my mind about that but melee units with piercing attacks or mixed pierce/hack attacks are quite useless for my gameplay already and that would reduce there power further...

And I think it would be really nice if the player could set default stances/formations before the game as a player option.


I just don't know how the final behavior is planned, so I cannot say much about it. I only don't see the needs for stances/formation/non-siege min. range/attack priorities/ attack boni/attack preventions. All of that can be done with unitAI, attack-move and armor/damage types IMO or has no actual gameplay value to me.

Edited by FeXoR, 23 April 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[feneur]

Quote

But I fear the question I have to ask here is: Why do you want stances at all? What are you expecting from them?

Actually, personally I guess it's mostly the Stand ground stance I want to avoid having ranged units moving around too much/getting in harms way =) Michael probably has bigger expectations for them/greater motivation for them being there, so I'll let him comment on that. (I write a bit more later, but am too tired to combine the answer to this question with my point below Hope you still is able to read it all and see the arguments further down )

Quote

I'm sorry. but it isn't like that. If the aim of the formations or it's actual state would be as you say to hold the units together as a bunch it would be a good thing because no single unit runs into the enemy and gets killed before the battle really started. That I would call it a 'glue' functionality that does not need a predefined shape at all. Warcraft 3 had it and I sometimes used it though you better turn it off if you flee. It's more like birds flying together but the shape changes. Mainly the unit closest to the target walks calm and the unit far away hastes to keep up with the others. To have such thing as an option (!) would be nice to have.

But as is now units move to a somehow defined center (center of mass? Am I assuming something here ) to shape a specific form. So it seams (!) to me that its not a gameplay feature at all... it's a visual feature or a feature simulating massive troop movement as is was back then and that would be a style feature IMO. And that's where we are back to the starting post of this topic.

Hmm, we're talking about the same thing with different words It's the current behavior of the units moving together to shape a specific form that I meant with

Quote

move around kinda close to each other

(as opposed to actually have some effect of them moving around next to each other apart from them looking nice and orderly) I guess I could have been clearer. In either case my point was exactly what you said above about the formations currently only being a visual thing Currently formations only "work" for movement (and the only way to move groups of units is to move them as a formation, which does make sense in many cases, but not when you want scattered units to get away from danger asap =) ). If we're able to implement formations in a useful way though the units will fight in/as a formation and not be scattered unless the formation breaks. We'll have to see exactly how formations end up being implemented, but one thing that has been suggested is for them to work like "if you put a group of units into formation they will essentially be as one big/wide unit, moving together, taking damage together, dealing damage together, and not break up unless either the user breaks up the formation or enough of them get killed that they're too few to be a formation so they get scattered as individual units".

There is a "scatter" formation (might use another word, I'm too tired right now to check exactly what it is, might be loose ), which currently doesn't seem to do what you suggest (just move the units around a random distance apart from each other, but in all other regards work as an ordinary formation), but that could be changed to work like what you suggest, or something similar, where the units move together, but aren't set up in a predefined shape but rather just moving near each other to the same goal.

Quote

Well, I don't agree. For me there are only two options: 1: A player gave the order 2: The unit was idle and the unit AI took control over the unit.

And since the player clicked the button its a player command from my point of view.

Hmm, partly we're getting into a philosophical discussion here "What is a player order, and how do you define it in a way that includes all possible situations?" I do think there is a slight point to it though, so I'll continue. =) Well, at an abstract/higher level it was a player order to "search and destroy", but if you break it down into smaller move and attack orders the individual move/attack orders are automatic (you didn't order the unit to move from point A to point B, to point C, etc, you didn't order it to attack the enemy soldiers it encountered while it moved from point X to point Z, etc). If you just want the units to always move around and attack anything they come near (i.e. a search and destroy command), the definition really is pretty moot. However, if there isn't a pure search-and-destroy action, but rather a search and destroy effect from using an auto explore mode together with an aggressive stance there is some merit to make a distinction as it then is just that, automatic behavior defined by the stances you've set. (I'm not saying it's the best way to implement it, and you're probably right that at least from a user point of view it's easiest if there is a search and destroy command as you don't have to understand the different combinations but rather can just click a button and the units do the job for you. As it'd mostly be useful in late game for hunting down individual units it would be fine to implement it in this way, so my main point with the rest of this discussion is to discuss stances in general, not as part of a way to implement a search and destroy feature )

Quote

I think stances shouldn't interact with any player given orders. It should be an 'AI configuration' option exclusively. And in this case I ask myself: Why not make a unit AI capable of handling most situations well instead of adding multiple unit AI behaviors with each working well in less situations? That would be something like aggressive but before moving checking if any easier to reach target is present (for example the unit right next to the fleeing one). So I ask you to at least add a stance that acts as I suggested. Let the player decide what he likes most.

I guess you're right about not interacting with player given orders, not sure where I got move orders from

I don't think it's possible to create a unit AI that can handle all situations good enough, mostly because it cannot know what your plans are. (And here comes some deeper/better arguments for stances as a whole than above ) You might be gathering up your troops for a big assault on your enemy, but a few scattered enemies come close. Now, what is the best way for your units to behave? If just judging from the perspective of these unit (which is all UnitAI is capable of, unless you hook up a proper AI to it, in which case you could just as well just watch two AIs fight ) it's probably best to all-out assault the enemies and destroy them completely, even if that means moving far away from the original point. In this case a defensive stance where they would attack the enemies if they get too close, but not move far away; a stand ground stance where only ranged units can attack unless the enemy walks right up to your units; or a passive stance where they don't do anything, probably would be best as they (depending on the exact stance) can defend themselves, but won't move away from the place you placed them.

In another case you might be near your enemy, but don't want to provoke the enemy units to attack yet as you don't have enough units. The enemy units might be just out of sight of your units most of the time, but moving around gathering resources etc, and the enemy player hasn't paid any attention to your units yet (say you have units with greater LOS or he just hasn't looked at that part of the map for a while, either way once his units are attacked he will get a notification and will be aware your units are near). In this case it could be fatal to have your units attack the enemy units before you has had the chance to move more troops there to make a greater assault at a time, so you place your units in passive stance where they don't attack. A short while later your main force is near and you order the mass of ranged units to attack the unsuspecting enemy (a direct player order should of course override the passive stance and while the units attack you can change to e.g. aggressive, or defensive if you don't want your units to move too close to the towers the enemy has built closer towards the center of his camp, but not yet near his resource gatherers where you attack).

Or you might be in the middle of a battle and want to have your ranged units keep attacking any enemy getting close enough too get within range, but not move closer (especially not past the protection of your melee units) and get killed by the enemy units, nor move further away and not be able to attack units that get closer, you put them in stand ground mode and they stay where you put them.

Etc, etc. My point is that I seriously doubt that a completely automatic system would be able to handle all possible cases/human plans. Take for example the last situation, maybe it's possible to create a system that can take care of the ranged units well enough to do that, but you might want them to be more aggressive and attack the enemy at closer range even though it means an almost certain death of them. Perhaps because you want to fool the other player that you're a beginner or desperate, while in fact you're just making him focus his attention on this fight while you're moving in another, larger, force from another direction/in another place where he doesn't expect it. A stances system is a way to give the player more control over how his units behave rather than less (though it currently works in the opposite way as stances takes priority over player orders, something I don't think they should ), by making it possible for the player to tell how the units should behave when idle.

Quote

That would be something like aggressive but before moving checking if any easier to reach target is present (for example the unit right next to the fleeing one). So I ask you to at least add a stance that acts as I suggested.

Not sure exactly what you're asking for here Are you talking about what you mentioned in the first sentence here or something else? If so I don't think it should be a part of stances at all, but rather of a more basic priorities system, something like: "a direct player order takes highest priority, even if it would be more logical from other code to attack a nearby unit it would still attack another unit further away (it's a bit hard to decide what the units should do if you've given them a direct order to attack - or for non-siege later capture - a building, but units start to attack them, should they continue to focus on the building - direct player order - or respond to the enemies - direct threat?); next comes units attacking it; later nearby enemy units, later still
enemy units further away but still within range/LOS. Apart from that there should be another priorities system so e.g. melee never attacks ranged units (unless by direct player order), cavalry prioritizes ranged infantry, ranged infantry prioritizes enemy melee infantry. And apart from that there should be the stances which should define e.g. whether the units follow enemy units far away or not, whether they stand still even while attacked etc. In other words, even if set to aggressive units should still attack an enemy unit they have a greater chance to defeat, the stances should just define e.g. how far they pursue them/whether they attack at all.

(Phew, that was a lot of text, hope it all makes sense. I hope I haven't left any unfinished sentences/points somewhere, if so I blame them on being tired and ask that you'll require me to explain myself tomorrow )

[FeXoR]

First of all thanks for your detailed reply. I think that perhaps it was necessary to wright everything down and I feel a bit ashamed I left it to you because I could have written the expected stance behaviour and it purpose myself though ofc. I would have had to assume more than you since I don't really know it. So perhaps it was best that way.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Phew, that was a lot of text, hope it all makes sense. I hope I haven't left any unfinished sentences/points somewhere, if so I blame them on being tired and ask that you'll require me to explain myself tomorrow

I think it was quite understandable and I don't really mind missing ends of sentences ...I didn't noticed any though.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

If we're able to implement formations in a useful way though the units will fight in/as a formation and not be scattered unless the formation breaks. We'll have to see exactly how formations end up being implemented, but one thing that has been suggested is for them to work like "if you put a group of units into formation they will essentially be as one big/wide unit, moving together, taking damage together, dealing damage together, and not break up unless either the user breaks up the formation or enough of them get killed that they're too few to be a formation so they get scattered as individual units".

If you do this I think it would be a good idea to have a button that ties the units together.rather then tying them just by selection. Afterwards the single unit cannot be selected but only the formation as the whole. Another button could split the formation into single units again. If the damage is split to all the units in a formation it will be quite overpowered because focused fire will not work against them any more (and it's unrealistic btw.). I don't mean I'm totally opposed to this idea, I just want to say that. It would be more realistic if the 'surface' of the formation would cycle injured or tired units with fresh units from the center. Dealing damage together is even more overpowered and exactly the opposite of what would happen if there where no 'together behavior' but only the shape was hold (I will assume now what that could mean because I don't know better): The units all can deal damage though the number of units at the surface (for a square only squareroot of the number of units) is quite low (and so in reality most could not attack). It seams to me (yes I am assuming again, what can I do ) thats more like forcing the issue to be effective than realistic.

There are 3 ways that could make formations effective witch come to my mind:
- Treating a formation generally as one big unit as you (or Michael) suggested: Most unrealistic and overpowered but simplest to implement I think. Feels to me like forcing the issue though.
- Keeping the units together in a well defined shape and make this as efficient as possible (e.g. cycling the outer units and heal the wounded inside): More realistic but still not effective enough. You'd still have to add damage or armor bonus (Armor would be more realistic due to shielding each other) to make up for the loss on surface and with it the loss of potential damage of melee fighters. That would be harder to implement though I think.
- The second method with an added moral (less moral -> less damage) and stamina system: Most realistic (see below). As hard to implement as the second idea and additionally a moral system to implement.

I think psychology was the main advantage of formations. In battle the own soldiers was surrounded by allies making them feel save. The enemy sees a big thing coming against them that laughs about (yes, assuming) ranged attack (though still they did damage but in the massive amounts of units it could not really been noticed. Neither for the allays that a friend has fallen/was injured, not to the enemy that their efforts had a result). With a veteran motivating the own troops and the troops believing (in) him because he won battles already. The enemy units (the prouder the better) feel provoked and go into melee combat. If you had a phalanx? (I think. Short sword, pilum, shield) the pilum was used to disarm the enemy shields and then mainly shielding each other and piercing through the gaps with the short sword. Spears in the second line was used against mounted enemies. Wounded soldiers was drawn from the front and replaced with fresh soldiers. That didn't only led to better performance per meter of the outline of the formation but also leaves only dead enemies on the front line - psychology again.

When the Huns and later the Mongols came that didn't let themselves be provoked and often ambushed this strategy lost its main value. Later knights (moralized by a high social status) with heavy horse breast plates crushed the lines of the enemies though the maintenance of a knit was quite high.

When bows got better and arrows reached a maximum momentum to break full body armors and shields the time of the knights came to an end... and so on...

Just a little story and why I think formations had no big physical value but mainly a moral impact.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Hmm, we're talking about the same thing with different words ...

I still thing theres a difference between 'gluing' units together and making them form a nice looking shape... but ok...

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

There is a "scatter" formation [...] but that could be changed to work like what you suggest, or something similar, where the units move together, but aren't set up in a predefined shape but rather just moving near each other to the same goal.

That would be really nice!

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Hmm, partly we're getting into a philosophical discussion here "What is a player order, and how do you define it in a way that includes all possible situations?"...

I totally agree . Though if you do it with stances you have to click 2 buttons instead of one additionally to what you said. But since stances are in, it still could be done with them. I could live with that

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

And here comes some deeper/better arguments for stances as a whole than above

Yes, of cause you are right. I will perhaps not use them much but it has benefits and I was stubborn not to agree with that in the first place. I think I just wanted to make it crystal clear that unit stances interacting with everything (especially player given command with some exceptions like e.g.auto explore) isn't a good idea but as I get it, it's more the missing order priority system.

feneur, on 23 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Not sure exactly what you're asking for here Are you talking about what you mentioned in the first sentence here or something else? If so I don't think it should be a part of stances at all, but rather of a more basic priorities system, something like: "a direct player order takes highest priority, even if it would be more logical from other code to attack a nearby unit it would still attack another unit further away (it's a bit hard to decide what the units should do if you've given them a direct order to attack - or for non-siege later capture - a building, but units start to attack them, should they continue to focus on the building - direct player order - or respond to the enemies - direct threat?); next comes units attacking it; later nearby enemy units, later still
enemy units further away but still within range/LOS. Apart from that there should be another priorities system so e.g. melee never attacks ranged units (unless by direct player order), cavalry prioritizes ranged infantry, ranged infantry prioritizes enemy melee infantry. And apart from that there should be the stances which should define e.g. whether the units follow enemy units far away or not, whether they stand still even while attacked etc. In other words, even if set to aggressive units should still attack an enemy unit they have a greater chance to defeat, the stances should just define e.g. how far they pursue them/whether they attack at all.

I'm speaking of the behavior of units in battle determined by the unit AI. First the order priority that would do best in general IMO: 1st: Player command. 2nd: Unit AI command depending on unit type, chosen stance and chosen formation: 2a: Be effective: Before starting to move check if you could attack instead. 2b: If attacking check if you could attack a more vulnerable target for your attacks instead. 2c: If you have to move, focus on a target that attacks. 2d: If no attacking target is near and you have to move focus on a target that you can catch.
I think you want 2a and 2b swapped. But exactly this leads to the strange ineffective behavior. it's better to attack a decent target than not to deal damage at all!
What I was asking for was a stance that does something like that. Before moving check if it can attack instead...

There may be an other priority before 2a that handles targets to avoid. However this has to be set carefully! It only should effect siege units avoiding non-siege units and piercing units to avoid buildings and rams. If you can deal more then 1 damage per attack to a unit, attack! By the way, ranged siege units should be extremely vulnerable to any hack/crush attacks. Think of a swordsman cutting a catapults rope - the catapult is useless after that. In addition ranged siege units shouldn't have that high piercing armor - Someone has to operate on it. IMO siege engines should have to be guarded. Until now 2 catapults win against 10 citizen melee soldiers... and there's nothing planned to change that AFAIK.
But here we got the issue by it's throat. The combinations available by unit type, stance and formation is that high that it seams impossible to implement really sensibly or a notable game play impact IMO.

If the player gives an order to attack a unit behind a battalion of enemies it's his fault, not the programmers...

Just to make sure I get it right: (Please tell me if I'm not):
- Unit type handles the attack priority and the units to avoid (wich AFAIK is the same as attack priority as planned) and the targets able to attack at all (which I doubt should be (widely) used)
- Stances handles how far units leave the position they where send by the player
- Formations handle the shape the units are forming, stat changes (movement speed decrease, armor increase, attack increased) and the damage derivation (overpowered IMO)

Lion.Kanzen, on 23 April 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

but the RAM aries dont have behavior buttons.

Sorry, oversaw this one. Yes, indeed that's another problem... It will be fixed by order priority though.

Edited by FeXoR, 24 April 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[feneur]

Hmm, am getting tired again, so while I'm sure there are things I can comment on I'll leave that for tomorrow =) If I forget please add a reply so I don't miss this topic

[FeXoR]

feneur, on 24 April 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Hmm, am getting tired again, so while I'm sure there are things I can comment on I'll leave that for tomorrow =) If I forget please add a reply so I don't miss this topic

Hiho, I wanted to add that my 'story' was not that perfect since I forgot about effective arrows where not available in massive numbers. Every arrow caught by a shield where an advantage to an well formated army. If they could catch arrows more 'expensive' then the shield itself it would really be an physical advantage.

Another thing I forgot to say clearly is the attack-move order. It's the most helpful command in modern RTS games. Just to say it directly: Attack move is IMO a player given order but is indeed inside the gray area between player and unit AI order. If stances should have an impact on it... well same pro and contras like for auto scout/search and destroy command (especially two clicks for one command doesn't sound good to me) ...and an attack move order given to a unit with stance 'hold ground' may be confusing (since the unit wouldn't attack).
And ofc. I wanted to remind you of this topic

Thx in advance

Edited by FeXoR, 27 April 2012 - 08:28 AM.