Anti-Meatsheild-ism proposal.
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Anti-Meatsheild-ism proposal.
What if the death of level 1 units cost something other than gold?
You recruit these people, but instead of helping them reach their goals, you send them into certain death rather than deal with difficult situations.
Yes, this is expensive, but that only means that it goes hand-in-hand with more aggressive bullying of the locals for taxes.
There are many strategy games in which the best strategy implies the worst gameplay, micromanagement being one example. Any scenario heavy on meatsheilds is more like a chore than a real game, you have to move a lot of units and try to get it over with as quickly as possible.
Of course, experienced players will likely avoid this approach - even I do, most of the time.
Too many sentences? Still looking for a point to react at?
My idea is that every level 1 (or level 0) death reduces by one either the leader's max-HP, or the leader's (accumulated) XP.
A more detailed system might be: level 0 death -> maxHP-1, level 1 death -> XP-1. Or, vice versa.
Actually, this has political aspects, too.
The mods may be vigilant about 'bad language', but no-one objects to reinforcing the commodification of the people (in terms of gold) by identification with an elite that controls them.
Sheilding the young from bad language so that they will make better cattle in future?
I think that making the leader pay with something more substantial and lasting than gold opens up interesting new challenges, and adds 'colour' to combat as every battle you direct has effects on 'your' character.
I'd like some feedback from those who feel at all inspired by this idea, or have theoretical objections.
Those fulfilling other urges are perhaps inevitable.
You recruit these people, but instead of helping them reach their goals, you send them into certain death rather than deal with difficult situations.
Yes, this is expensive, but that only means that it goes hand-in-hand with more aggressive bullying of the locals for taxes.
There are many strategy games in which the best strategy implies the worst gameplay, micromanagement being one example. Any scenario heavy on meatsheilds is more like a chore than a real game, you have to move a lot of units and try to get it over with as quickly as possible.
Of course, experienced players will likely avoid this approach - even I do, most of the time.
Too many sentences? Still looking for a point to react at?
My idea is that every level 1 (or level 0) death reduces by one either the leader's max-HP, or the leader's (accumulated) XP.
A more detailed system might be: level 0 death -> maxHP-1, level 1 death -> XP-1. Or, vice versa.
Actually, this has political aspects, too.
The mods may be vigilant about 'bad language', but no-one objects to reinforcing the commodification of the people (in terms of gold) by identification with an elite that controls them.
Sheilding the young from bad language so that they will make better cattle in future?
I think that making the leader pay with something more substantial and lasting than gold opens up interesting new challenges, and adds 'colour' to combat as every battle you direct has effects on 'your' character.
I'd like some feedback from those who feel at all inspired by this idea, or have theoretical objections.
Those fulfilling other urges are perhaps inevitable.
finite, infinite, definite
From an anarchistic view I like one aspect of your argument: that everyone counts on a personal level as something more than an economical loss.
But from an anarchistic view I don't like the basic idea:
1. Anarchy is peaceful ideology/philosophy so discussing wartheory is hard for me.
2. If there is war/battle a commander has to be chosen (as with all emergency situations) those who did agree to have me as a commander and willingly want to be recruited count on being killed as they know that not fighting that war/battle is probably worse.
And from a gameplay view I think that your idea has some merit although I suspect that if you only consider some or your losses an economical loss you are doing something wrong. (I know I do that sometimes, hopfully more selldom today than 2 weeks ago
).
But from a teaching point of view I think it's an excellent idea as that (if properly anounced) will teach new players to take care of their resources (the troops).
/tsr
But from an anarchistic view I don't like the basic idea:
1. Anarchy is peaceful ideology/philosophy so discussing wartheory is hard for me.
2. If there is war/battle a commander has to be chosen (as with all emergency situations) those who did agree to have me as a commander and willingly want to be recruited count on being killed as they know that not fighting that war/battle is probably worse.
And from a gameplay view I think that your idea has some merit although I suspect that if you only consider some or your losses an economical loss you are doing something wrong. (I know I do that sometimes, hopfully more selldom today than 2 weeks ago
).But from a teaching point of view I think it's an excellent idea as that (if properly anounced) will teach new players to take care of their resources (the troops).
/tsr
One related idea is to have a recruit count: you can only recruit a certain number of units during a campaign. This can resemble the limited manpower available. Alternatively, recruiting can be disabled and a fixed recall list provided.
Another way is to make recruiting substantially harder (like, for undead, to completely disallow recruiting, but to allow to re-recruit the enemy's dead units, and pay a cost if you want them to be something else than WC's, or to allow undead recruiting at villages only, while in the process destroying the village.)
(Just random ideas, might be interesting to use in campaigns.)
Another way is to make recruiting substantially harder (like, for undead, to completely disallow recruiting, but to allow to re-recruit the enemy's dead units, and pay a cost if you want them to be something else than WC's, or to allow undead recruiting at villages only, while in the process destroying the village.)
(Just random ideas, might be interesting to use in campaigns.)
Well, the context of Wesnoth doesn't mesh with anarchist voluntarism and egalitarianism anyway; willingness to be recruited etc. is already hierarchical, but I see your point.tsr wrote: 2. If there is war/battle a commander has to be chosen (as with all emergency situations) those who did agree to have me as a commander and willingly want to be recruited count on being killed as they know that not fighting that war/battle is probably worse.
Of course. It would be a very long post if I went into detail; "experienced players will likely avoid this" seemed enough.And from a gameplay view I think that your idea has some merit although I suspect that if you only consider some or your losses an economical loss you are doing something wrong.
(I often assume that the reader can interpolate multiple steps)
I think that keeping the number of recruits fluid is probably essential to the way BfW plays now.Jgrr wrote:One related idea is to have a recruit count ...
Complete freedom (within limits) is needed to be able to choose different approaches.
It could be done in a campaign for variety, or to force a scenario to be handled a certain way, but it would be like a completely different game.
The second idea may be too complicated.
I am quite interested in the specific proposal I made as it might effect gameplay.
People do not usually note the exact values of large numbers, so it does not complicate gameplay in terms of things the user has to calculate. But the fact that it is higher or lower, and knowledge of what the causes are, would seem to make them more present throughout play - not just when critical levels are reached.
The fact that advances are not immutable, but must be maintained. A level 3 leader doesn't stay powerful without good performance.
Last edited by zol on July 31st, 2006, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
finite, infinite, definite
I just finished A New Order, and that inspires me a few comments with respect to this proposal.
1/ Yes, at the end level I did recruit some cannon-fodder level 1 units. If two level 2/3 units gangs up to kill your useless thug, then you can wipe them out with a couple mages/.... without taking much punishment on your valuable units.
2/ Yes, a recruit limit (count) works great. There is one point in the campaign where you are only allowed to recruit peasants and 4 spearmen/bowmen. Clearly you become much more cuatious about your units. Later on, you have to select 12 units and play several scenarios with this fixed recall list plus a couple other units that are given to you. Again, you are very cautious about you resources and consider the lost of a level 1 as a big lose.
1/ Yes, at the end level I did recruit some cannon-fodder level 1 units. If two level 2/3 units gangs up to kill your useless thug, then you can wipe them out with a couple mages/.... without taking much punishment on your valuable units.
2/ Yes, a recruit limit (count) works great. There is one point in the campaign where you are only allowed to recruit peasants and 4 spearmen/bowmen. Clearly you become much more cuatious about your units. Later on, you have to select 12 units and play several scenarios with this fixed recall list plus a couple other units that are given to you. Again, you are very cautious about you resources and consider the lost of a level 1 as a big lose.
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.
Jym.
-
Prometheus
- Posts: 117
- Joined: March 15th, 2006, 10:50 am
Your proposal is easily implemented in WML, but I think is not such a good one, as a general does not become less experienced or easier to kill when he loses troops. There are morale effects to losses, but Wesnoth by design does not include morale effects.
Other possibilities are to have units increase in cost as losses increase (UtBS), or to implement a victory point system, so that objectives and losses have to be balanced, again easily implemented in WML (HttT has a primitive victory point system in one scenario), or to simply say the player loses if casualties exceed a certain level.
Other possibilities are to have units increase in cost as losses increase (UtBS), or to implement a victory point system, so that objectives and losses have to be balanced, again easily implemented in WML (HttT has a primitive victory point system in one scenario), or to simply say the player loses if casualties exceed a certain level.
Thanks for commenting Jym. It's good to find out how well ideas have worked.
- choice of leader unit. I haven't played any games with this choice, I assume this is possible in MP or means campaign designer's choice.
- a strong melee unit is precisely one that can compensate at the front line; maxHP increases with advancements or AMLAs.
- a low melee leader might actually enter combat more with this system, preferring short term damage to long term reduction of already low maxHP (relative to melee units).
Perhaps you are thinking of a unit that has become critically flabby?
I don't quite understand this argument.Noyga wrote:I don't find it's a good idea...
It would make the choice of a strong melee unit as a leader a less valuable choice and will dissuade from using your the leader in combat.
- choice of leader unit. I haven't played any games with this choice, I assume this is possible in MP or means campaign designer's choice.
- a strong melee unit is precisely one that can compensate at the front line; maxHP increases with advancements or AMLAs.
- a low melee leader might actually enter combat more with this system, preferring short term damage to long term reduction of already low maxHP (relative to melee units).
Perhaps you are thinking of a unit that has become critically flabby?
Last edited by zol on July 31st, 2006, 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
finite, infinite, definite
First of all, the proposal makes no logical sense. Unless the leader is an undead mage controlling the units with his lifeforce, why would he lose HP or XP upon them dying?
Secondly, I don't see why it is desirable. You seem to be talking mostly about campaigns, to which I say - don't design meat-shield scenarios! But don't change the game so that scenarios designed to be meat-shield scenarios are even more frustrating.
I also don't see how it will be a good teaching device. More than anything, I suspect, it will make new players get confused as to why the hell their leader keeps losing HP even though he is never in battle. Then they'd report it as a bug.
And if you explain it, most people would probably say, "that's dumb", and perhaps stop playing the game at that point. At least, I know I would.
From the political point of view you're bringing up... I'm not an anarchist. And we shouldn't change the game to have an anarchist political message.
Secondly, I don't see why it is desirable. You seem to be talking mostly about campaigns, to which I say - don't design meat-shield scenarios! But don't change the game so that scenarios designed to be meat-shield scenarios are even more frustrating.
I also don't see how it will be a good teaching device. More than anything, I suspect, it will make new players get confused as to why the hell their leader keeps losing HP even though he is never in battle. Then they'd report it as a bug.
And if you explain it, most people would probably say, "that's dumb", and perhaps stop playing the game at that point. At least, I know I would.
From the political point of view you're bringing up... I'm not an anarchist.
And we shouldn't change the game to have an anarchist political message.For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
It wouldn't even scratch the surface of entrenched dogma.
In fact, the quote "that's dumb" reminds me (how could I forget) that people have radically different perception.
I have not given an explanation for these effects in terms of the game context, but the mere fact that it is not already familiar in advance would elicit the same response.
I never saw it as a teaching device myself, so much as a twist that produces more complex mental faculties in the player.
Well, that's just me: I like mind-expansion.
So, the reason is actually more like - "Hey, this is creating more interest for me, and making connections with other areas." (of which politics is just one).
Logic, or in this case, Familiarity is not high among my priorities for games.
Accepted conventions may be justified by realism, gameplay, ease of implementation etc. or just be accepted without examination.
Perhaps I could make up a story about these ideas, too, but my explanation would be more like the explanation for the knight's move in chess.
<edit>To clarify, I'm only using XP, maxHP to avoid adding new stats, and because they have the right kind of roles. I had expected that people would be able to take the abstract idea apart from the example.</edit>
Anyway, I've read and posted enough here to think that, in this forum:
Ideas outside of the established framework should be discussed outside.
In fact, the quote "that's dumb" reminds me (how could I forget) that people have radically different perception.
I have not given an explanation for these effects in terms of the game context, but the mere fact that it is not already familiar in advance would elicit the same response.
I never saw it as a teaching device myself, so much as a twist that produces more complex mental faculties in the player.
Well, that's just me: I like mind-expansion.
So, the reason is actually more like - "Hey, this is creating more interest for me, and making connections with other areas." (of which politics is just one).
Logic, or in this case, Familiarity is not high among my priorities for games.
Accepted conventions may be justified by realism, gameplay, ease of implementation etc. or just be accepted without examination.
Perhaps I could make up a story about these ideas, too, but my explanation would be more like the explanation for the knight's move in chess.
<edit>To clarify, I'm only using XP, maxHP to avoid adding new stats, and because they have the right kind of roles. I had expected that people would be able to take the abstract idea apart from the example.</edit>
Anyway, I've read and posted enough here to think that, in this forum:
Ideas outside of the established framework should be discussed outside.
Last edited by zol on July 31st, 2006, 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
finite, infinite, definite
-
FleshPeeler
- Posts: 162
- Joined: June 19th, 2006, 8:37 pm
- Location: A mystery wrapped in an enigma smothered with a three cheese blend.
- Contact:
From a vegetarian point of view, I think any use of meat as a shield is despicable. Think of the cows!!
I disagree with your idea because it simultaneously breaks a LOT of strategies. I play Northerners extensively, and I cannot praise enough the uses of Goblin Spearmen as walking shields. A large part of my strategy is recruiting as many of those little 0-upkeep low-XP-granting yay-for-pierce-damage guys as I can spare and using them to hold ground or cover the ass of a retreating wounded unit (Plus, they get more melee attacks than any other fighting-primary unit. I've excluded Wolfriders since they suck for combat unless you upgrade them).
I'm sure a lot of Undead players would agree with me for the same reason.
Sorry, but this is just a very unimpressive idea altogether. It restricts gameplay by damaging the potential of openness towards different strategies.
I disagree with your idea because it simultaneously breaks a LOT of strategies. I play Northerners extensively, and I cannot praise enough the uses of Goblin Spearmen as walking shields. A large part of my strategy is recruiting as many of those little 0-upkeep low-XP-granting yay-for-pierce-damage guys as I can spare and using them to hold ground or cover the ass of a retreating wounded unit (Plus, they get more melee attacks than any other fighting-primary unit. I've excluded Wolfriders since they suck for combat unless you upgrade them).
I'm sure a lot of Undead players would agree with me for the same reason.
Sorry, but this is just a very unimpressive idea altogether. It restricts gameplay by damaging the potential of openness towards different strategies.
What if nobody ever asked "What if?"
FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.
FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.
It changes the trade-offs involved with different strategies, it doesn't make them any less available.FleshPeeler wrote:It restricts gameplay by damaging the potential of openness towards different strategies.
It's a bit less like playing in god-mode.
I believe it makes the choice more interesting.
finite, infinite, definite
Would single handedly shred the balance that wesnoth currently has.
First, half the units logically don't fall into that catagory of getting their lives thrown I think is what you said, im pretty sure spearmen, archers, horsemen, mages, heavy infantrymen are pledged to their leader and wouldn't want it to get hurt when they die.
Second this makes no sense for undead so they wouldn't get it making throwing balance out the window.
Undead recruting enemy units after a certain point makes sense but there is no way to balance that at all, unless its just a graphical difference.
On bigger maps a recruit limit would be super super annoying.
I am not sure what you mean by meatshields being a chore, thats part of the game ... do you mean meatshields as in moving things to protect a mage? Or just heavy units on the front line, either way it isn't a chore at all...
Logically if anything a leader would GAIN xp, learning from its mistakes or something like that.
Troops are already your most precious resource, well xp gathering ones are. If they plan on getting any good they will take care of their units, if not no need to punish them with minor ajustments to a leader, they are just going to lose the match.
And what do you mean playing in god mode? If you lose a units YOU LOSE there is already a consequence, there is no need to add another minor one.
Basically the idea boils down too:
Hey that poor guy just lost some troops, lets throw sticks at him!
First, half the units logically don't fall into that catagory of getting their lives thrown I think is what you said, im pretty sure spearmen, archers, horsemen, mages, heavy infantrymen are pledged to their leader and wouldn't want it to get hurt when they die.
Second this makes no sense for undead so they wouldn't get it making throwing balance out the window.
Undead recruting enemy units after a certain point makes sense but there is no way to balance that at all, unless its just a graphical difference.
On bigger maps a recruit limit would be super super annoying.
I am not sure what you mean by meatshields being a chore, thats part of the game ... do you mean meatshields as in moving things to protect a mage? Or just heavy units on the front line, either way it isn't a chore at all...
Logically if anything a leader would GAIN xp, learning from its mistakes or something like that.
Troops are already your most precious resource, well xp gathering ones are. If they plan on getting any good they will take care of their units, if not no need to punish them with minor ajustments to a leader, they are just going to lose the match.
And what do you mean playing in god mode? If you lose a units YOU LOSE there is already a consequence, there is no need to add another minor one.
Basically the idea boils down too:
Hey that poor guy just lost some troops, lets throw sticks at him!
Last edited by Sorrow on July 31st, 2006, 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It might be interesting for a custom scenario where a lich gains hp when he recruits and loses it when one of his minions dies, but other than that it has a lot of problems.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."