You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.113 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Tactical formations are removed from AoE3??
Bottom
Topic Subject:Tactical formations are removed from AoE3??
« Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 5  Next Page »
Alexandergreat3
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 03:47 PM EDT (US)         
Age of Empires III Preview (page 3)

Quote:

Complex line formations are no longer an option as they presented too many problems for the player, but simple formations still hold an essential role in organizing your troops for proper arrangement.

It appears that the Tactical formations feature is removed from AoE3.

The Complex line formations mentioned above is commonly known as the "Tactical formations", a feature that gives defensive/offensive advantages to units when they are placed in certain formations.

The Simple formations refers to the basic formations used in previous age games, such as AoK and AoM, where the types of formations did not provide much, if any at all, strategic value.

AuthorReplies:
schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 03:50 PM EDT (US)     1 / 113       
you still got box, important to protect cannons, volley, spread if you attack cannons and normal. so still enough
Alizee
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 03:53 PM EDT (US)     2 / 113       
This does sound for the better, it sounded a bit confusing if you had to switch formations all the time, that was a smart move I think for sure. More micro based now instead of the luck of picking the right formation at the right moment. Cool.
Elpea
Hal
(id: lp_usa)
posted 08-11-05 04:18 PM EDT (US)     3 / 113       
Ya, it was removed.

But there's still normal formations, like in AoK.


[This message has been edited by Elpea (edited 08-11-2005 @ 04:19 PM).]

schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 04:22 PM EDT (US)     4 / 113       
but do you use them more then in aok?
Lysimachus
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 04:31 PM EDT (US)     5 / 113       
Pardon me for the error in terminology. Yes, Complex = Tactical and Simple = Basic.

I wasn't aware of the specific terminology, but I'm sure everyone still gets the correct picture.

Yes, Tactical formations were removed. It was a painful decision for ES to make, but they simply just weren't working out, and were causing just too many problems for practical purposes.


~Lysimachus - Former HG Angel for Rise & Fall Heaven || Was RaFH Game Info Admin || Proud Member of HG since 1998

[This message has been edited by Lysimachus (edited 08-11-2005 @ 07:38 PM).]

lief ericson
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 04:46 PM EDT (US)     6 / 113       
Er... so combat isn't tactical anymore? There goes the thing I was looking forward to the most.

SEXITUP.
Former Leader of the FPH Clan
Acting-President of AoMH
Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 04:52 PM EDT (US)     7 / 113       
Could someone please describe in precise detail what exactly was removed? Were these attack and resistance bonuses for specific formations?
Realn
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 04:52 PM EDT (US)     8 / 113       
Yeah... What kind of problems were the tactical formations causing? How complex were they? Also the question schildpad asked, too. Just curious.
dupsky
Banned
posted 08-11-05 04:55 PM EDT (US)     9 / 113       
MTW had a million formations, but that was an tbs.
i think ,in a rts it would be a hinderence because you make split second decisions here.
too many formations complicate it unnessecerily.
Stormboy
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:03 PM EDT (US)     10 / 113       
Bruce Shelley in his blog on June 10:

Quoted from Bruce Shelley:

Elsewhere on this map we set up a large battle with musketeers, cavalry, and cannon on each side. Here we could show what units look like in formation and how formations are going to make a big difference in combat. We hope to banish what Dave Pottinger calls the "swirling mass of crap" combat model.


So are we back now to the "swirling mass of crap" or do the remaining basic formations still provide sufficient structure to the battles? (at least more than in AoK/AoM?)
Alexandergreat3
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:18 PM EDT (US)     11 / 113       

Quoted from Lysimachus:

It was a painful decision for SSSi to make, but they simply just weren't working out,

Hehe, I'm sure you didn't mean SSSi took out AoE3's strategic formations .

Did ES give you the details on what specifically weren't working out?

Quoted from Doggiedoodl:

Were these attack and resistance bonuses for specific formations?

Yes, unfortunately.

Quoted from Realn:

Yeah... What kind of problems were the tactical formations causing? How complex were they?

The tactical formations aren't complex at all: all they do is give actual, numerical bonuses for troops in those formations. It actually gives a reason for using formations, and rewards those who use them well. It was a really great feature.

[This message has been edited by Alexandergreat3 (edited 08-11-2005 @ 05:20 PM).]

Realn
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:24 PM EDT (US)     12 / 113       
Oh, I consider those 'stances'. - Formations that give numerical bonuses... terms...

Okay then, maybe those tactical formations were giving too much of a bonus and weren't good? I don't know; can't miss something if you never had it.

Alizee
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:47 PM EDT (US)     13 / 113       
You have to figure the standard unit counters though in addition to formations it really complicates things. In another sense if the formations give too much advantage it really removes micro because you know one formation is that much better and so you can just sit and shoot.
Alexandergreat3
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:48 PM EDT (US)     14 / 113       

Quoted from Realn:

I don't know; can't miss something if you never had it.

On an unrelated news, the Rag doll effects of AoE3's Havok engine has been recently removed due to estimated performance problems on low-end systems...

PS: Rag doll effects didn't get removed; it was a joke.

Doggiedoodle
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 05:50 PM EDT (US)     15 / 113       
I have kind of a mixed opinion about giving numerical bonuses for certain formations, on one hand it adds some complexity to the game, but on the other hand its more to balance in a game that is already introducing enough new stuff to be a real pain to balance it. I think for now the removal is a good thing but when they have a better idea of how the rest of the stuff is working out it would be cool to have them patched back in. Another question would be with these formations, when they break the formation to attack do they retain the bonus even though they aren't actually in the formation? It would seem rather pointlss if that were the case and it would also really hlep out rushes.
Angel Sith
Skirmisher
(id: X_SithLord)
posted 08-11-05 06:03 PM EDT (US)     16 / 113       
Alexandergreat3, just a note that you need to change your email to a working one; an email about your topic being moved bounced. Could you please update it as soon as it's convenient? Thanks.

Sith
Halo 2 Stats | AoMH | AoE3H | FMT

[This message has been edited by Sith (edited 08-11-2005 @ 06:04 PM).]

Alexandergreat3
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 06:11 PM EDT (US)     17 / 113       
Must be my junkmail filter. I'll unblock it.
Pwned
Skirmisher
(id: You_Are_Pwned)
posted 08-11-05 07:04 PM EDT (US)     18 / 113       
Good decision, battles should be about who has the better micro, not who gets lucky with their formation.

ada
lief ericson
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:08 PM EDT (US)     19 / 113       
Meh. It looks like battles really haven't changed at all. They're just prettier AoK battles with cannons and mostly ranged units.

SEXITUP.
Former Leader of the FPH Clan
Acting-President of AoMH
Byzantine2793
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:10 PM EDT (US)     20 / 113       
i dont get what you mean by tactical formations, i mean that doesnt make any sences
Thanatos
Skirmisher
(id: deathmaster666)
posted 08-11-05 07:16 PM EDT (US)     21 / 113       
Darn it! Back to the swirling mass of crap.
Lest just remove the home city too, as it might add complexity.

Help me to tally the forums belief patterns, vote in my poll

Tally so far:-
Agnostics:18
Atheists:28
Theists:42
Byzantine2793
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:18 PM EDT (US)     22 / 113       
you relise that it wont be swilring masses of crap the formation work properly now unlike in aoc but thye gave up trying to make the advatous ones working be4cause it was jsut killing the balance issuse (be glad it was removed it probally took another 2 months off the time it takes to make
Alexandergreat3
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:26 PM EDT (US)     23 / 113       

Quoted from Byzantine2793:

i dont get what you mean by tactical formations, i mean that doesnt make any sences

There are a few screenshots that show the UI, and on the right side, there is a tab named "Tactics" that gives a few options for your troops, and changes their defensive/offensive stats accordingly.

For example, in spread formation, troops recieve less damage from artillery.

barley_n_oats
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:41 PM EDT (US)     24 / 113       

Quote:

Er... so combat isn't tactical anymore? There goes the thing I was looking forward to the most.

Seriously. I'm sure the Home City's a great new feature, but I was looking forward to changing formations in the middle of combat to swing a battle my way. (fire a few volleys, then bayonet charge, etc.)'

I would rather wait the extra 2( or 3 or 4...) months it would take to figure this feature in.

"Tactical" formations would set AOEIII above other RTS games more than the Home City.
/opinion/sometruth.

Even if they just made these tactical formation advantages very very very slight, I would wait months for it.


ESO: oats
ESO2: dirtyoatmeal

[This message has been edited by barley_n_oats (edited 08-11-2005 @ 07:44 PM).]

Lysimachus
Skirmisher
posted 08-11-05 07:48 PM EDT (US)     25 / 113       
Greg Street would more likely be able to give you guys a concise, detailed answer. Unfortunately, I don't know much more than the rest of you.

Simply put, according to some of the Devs, formations were just less fun than non-formations. According to one dev I asked, he said that it caused too many frustrations for the player. Your formation would be locked, and you couldn't attack appropriately and the way you wanted as efficiently like you could when not in formation.

That's as much as I know, but perhaps some of the devs will be so kind as to come in here and enlighten the community a bit more on the problems combat formations posed.


Alexanderthegreat3,

Quote:

Hehe, I'm sure you didn't mean SSSi took out AoE3's strategic formations

LoL...fixed! *methinks I've been workin' at R&FH too much*


~Lysimachus - Former HG Angel for Rise & Fall Heaven || Was RaFH Game Info Admin || Proud Member of HG since 1998

[This message has been edited by Lysimachus (edited 08-11-2005 @ 07:54 PM).]

« Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 5  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames