This game is ridiculous

[MikiTheBerserkr]

It is literally harmful for your unit to kill attackers. If the attacker survives with like 1 hp it's often not a big deal. If he dies another attacker with full hp can jump in his place............. When patch?

[Ravana]

You can create modification which gives all units no retaliation special. Then nothing can die on wrong turn.

[MikiTheBerserkr]

Don't troll ravana :facepalm:

Also ridiculous is that upkeep for level 2 is 2 times higher than level 1, and level 3 three times..... :facepalm:

Btw what is it for lvl 0 units??? 0???

[max_torch]

it's 0 for lvl0

[beetlenaut]

.... When patch?

What form would you like this patch to take? How would the mechanics change? I'm genuinely curious. Ravana offered you a real solution to fix the problem you mentioned, and you accused him of trolling, so what exactly do you want?

Also ridiculous is that upkeep for level 2 is 2 times higher than level 1

Keep in mind that you get a pretty good discount by recalling a level-2 or level-3 unit, so the higher upkeep is balanced by a lower initial cost. Obviously, you don't need to recall a unit if you think it's not worth the upkeep.

[shevegen]

MikiTheBerserkr wrote:

> It is literally harmful for your unit to kill attackers.

The game is more on the tactical and strategic side, e. g. you need to
find a way to relate maintaining your army with cost.

There could perhaps be a few more changes in regards to upkeep, perhaps
having a way to pay more money to then reduce the upkeep cost to 0 or 1
gold or so. That way one could spend more gold early on to then reduce
things and costs lateron. So I think such changes could be possible, with
some convincing. But by and large you may need to approach the game's
philosophy more on the strategic side; sometimes you need to bait enemy
via weaker units, sometimes you need to protect your units with other
units (I often have the turtle position e. g. healer in the middle and surrounded
by allied units) and what not. Some campaigns kind of need alternative
thinking, e. g. one that was very hard was that I needed to have units with
e. g. 70% dodge or so, to soak up damage indirectly (aka not get hurt at
all which I did not understand initially).

Sometimes it is better to not instantly kill enemy units that are weak, if
some other enemy unit could deal more damage. I have that issue with
trolls in particular, so when I have e. g. that shaman elf that can slow, or
what was the name, I use her to "tag" units that could deal a lot of damage,
rather than kill an enemy unit (unless I really need the XP, which is often
the case too, but I don't usually need to have ALL these shamans survive,
so some are a bit of a fodder. I like elven rangers the most though, they
seem to be the most cost efficient overall).

PS: Just realised I am soon 20 years registered on this board! I feel soooo
ancient now ... now I have to find even older people on this webforum, so
I can feel young again ...

[Zrevnur]

From my POV this (attacker dies while attacking and gets replaced with another attacker) is a design failure. Never liked it. Almost dead units being particularly dangerous does not agree with my understanding of fluff/immersion.

.... When patch?

What form would you like this patch to take? How would the mechanics change? I'm genuinely curious. Ravana offered you a real solution to fix the problem you mentioned, and you accused him of trolling, so what exactly do you want?

Not OP but my take:
For single player asking whether you want your unit to stop counter attacking if the next single hit would kill the attacker would be a fairly simple solution.
When a unit gets a level up with more than one choice there is already a precedence for interruption.
The AI would have to be changed to properly consider this on both ends.

There are other possible approaches not needing the interruption like body blocking by allied corpses for 1 turn. Would also be viable for all game modes. But this would be a lot more expensive to realize.

[Atreides]

From my POV this (attacker dies while attacking and gets replaced with another attacker) is a design failure. Never liked it. Almost dead units being particularly dangerous does not agree with my understanding of fluff/immersion.

Well the BfW system is sequential. That is indeed different from say a typical wargame where the movement and combat phase are separate. However there's no point in changing the very skeleton of BfW. Well I suppose maybe a mod could be made to force all moves before all combat.

[Ravana]

It is very easy to implement if someone has interest to try it.

[Zrevnur]

For single player asking whether you want your unit to stop counter attacking if the next single hit would kill the attacker would be a fairly simple solution.
When a unit gets a level up with more than one choice there is already a precedence for interruption.
The AI would have to be changed to properly consider this on both ends.

Adding here:
- If one side has 'berserk' no dialogue/choice would be displayed. At least thats my understanding about how 'berserk' is supposed to work.
- If there is no effective difference between choices (the defender does not end up killing the attacker) then no dialogue/choice is displayed. It would be unnecessary as both choices would end up having the exactly same effect.
- IIRC the AI currently tries to avoid attacking with units that can get killed by retaliation unless its part of the plan to overwhelm the target. With such a feature the AI (if it is updated) would be even less inclined to attack in such cases.
All the above would reduce the frequency of the dialogue/choice.

From my POV this (attacker dies while attacking and gets replaced with another attacker) is a design failure. Never liked it. Almost dead units being particularly dangerous does not agree with my understanding of fluff/immersion.

Well the BfW system is sequential. That is indeed different from say a typical wargame where the movement and combat phase are separate. However there's no point in changing the very skeleton of BfW.

Agree that this "should" not be changed. It would have a severe effect on Wesnoth and if not properly integrated would cause more harm than good such as:
- Too easy to block attacking armies.
- Impossible to break lines.
Both these do not agree with Wesnoth as it currently is.

It is very easy to implement if someone has interest to try it.

Not sure what you mean with "it". If "it" includes my simple solution above then: My personal take is(, others likely have different views): Im not looking for an addon. I mostly play campaigns and want to play them "fair and square as designed", not with something that makes it easier. Also dont want to push an agenda here. Did want to give my opinion though. And wanted to show that there is a fairly simple partial solution.
Also not sure what kind of feedback you would be looking for? If it works technically - this is very easy to find out. The effect on gameplay also seems quite obvious. From my POV this is mostly a philosophical question: Do you (Wesnoth developers) want to do something like that? Is this even seen as a benefit? And if yes - is this benefit worth the cost of that dialogue/choice?

[Atreides]

"It" is the mod I suggested could be made if someone was interested in working on it.