AltarofScience
The Brain
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 24
removed
Last edited:
removed
- Thread starter AltarofScience
- Start date
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
To be honest, you're much better off joining programming forums then posting on this forum site.
There's maybe two resident programmers who sometimes post in the Computers forum, but no detailed algorithm design like you're asking.
The dumbest definition of a formation is a pattern dressed off of the unit commander, with sub-commanders dressed off of the unit commander. There have been a few RTS games that implemented stock formations. Warrior Kings was one that comes to mind. Shogun 2 has a pretty sophisticate set of formation pre-sets, although I've not quite figured them out. Searching Youtube for flocking behavior + RTS gives some ideas too.
There's maybe two resident programmers who sometimes post in the Computers forum, but no detailed algorithm design like you're asking.
The dumbest definition of a formation is a pattern dressed off of the unit commander, with sub-commanders dressed off of the unit commander. There have been a few RTS games that implemented stock formations. Warrior Kings was one that comes to mind. Shogun 2 has a pretty sophisticate set of formation pre-sets, although I've not quite figured them out. Searching Youtube for flocking behavior + RTS gives some ideas too.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Is there any point in actually forming units up in your RTS? If yes, then good you should keep figuring this out, maybe take a look (although its probably different) at the total war games or something.
If not then don't bother since the game is probably going to rely purely upon who can click the fastest anyway and fancy formations will just make it take longer for units to attack (mele/close rnage anyway).
If not then don't bother since the game is probably going to rely purely upon who can click the fastest anyway and fancy formations will just make it take longer for units to attack (mele/close rnage anyway).
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I agree with manaical that I'd find them interesting if they were functional and not aesthetic.
The simplest formation might be to go to Napoleon times and have a column vs. line formation in which units in column travel faster but take more enemy damage, or what not. Or you could make formations kind of a hot-key micromanaging ability like say Rome Total War does.
It sounds like you want to simulate military formations down to the individual soldier to simulate the dynamic value of formation. In which case you probably want to get a look at the tactical reasons for formations. And that varies with time period. For instance classical eras would have overlapping shields which is the main value of formations at all, besides being able to quickly bring up reserve forces to a melee (I recall Romans had staggered spaces between each Century (not Centurion) so a fresh Century could come up alongside to support a Century already in melee.
Formation tactics in the age of pike and gunpowder were quite different, but basically allowed for complementation of unit types. That is pretty much what the Shogun 2 Total War formations get at to (complementing pike, melee, cavalry and missile).
Tactical formations (dismounted) in the era of assault rifle and machine gun infantry are all about making contact with the enemy with minimal risk, and then responding with maximum firepower frontage. To some extent it's about fields of fire too for the supporting weapons and to minimize friendly fire incidents. But it's a lot like Napoleon times (some formations for speed, some formations for maximum "frontage"), just with more dispersive formations.
I think what you're trying to do is really not how most RTS games approach unit combat.
The simplest formation might be to go to Napoleon times and have a column vs. line formation in which units in column travel faster but take more enemy damage, or what not. Or you could make formations kind of a hot-key micromanaging ability like say Rome Total War does.
It sounds like you want to simulate military formations down to the individual soldier to simulate the dynamic value of formation. In which case you probably want to get a look at the tactical reasons for formations. And that varies with time period. For instance classical eras would have overlapping shields which is the main value of formations at all, besides being able to quickly bring up reserve forces to a melee (I recall Romans had staggered spaces between each Century (not Centurion) so a fresh Century could come up alongside to support a Century already in melee.
Formation tactics in the age of pike and gunpowder were quite different, but basically allowed for complementation of unit types. That is pretty much what the Shogun 2 Total War formations get at to (complementing pike, melee, cavalry and missile).
Tactical formations (dismounted) in the era of assault rifle and machine gun infantry are all about making contact with the enemy with minimal risk, and then responding with maximum firepower frontage. To some extent it's about fields of fire too for the supporting weapons and to minimize friendly fire incidents. But it's a lot like Napoleon times (some formations for speed, some formations for maximum "frontage"), just with more dispersive formations.
I think what you're trying to do is really not how most RTS games approach unit combat.
Similar threads
