Knalgans and water

[F50]

agreed, but what I am saying is that their poor efficiency in water is too poor.

Knalgans are either strong/hardy or hard to hit, in the mountains they have both. Other balancing characteristics is: their main units are comparatively weak on plains (to balance their strength in mountains) although they are not useless on plains, they have no magical abilities (all other factions do), and they have awkward scouts.

An increased efficiency on water would not unbalance things unduly. If their water unit could not move fast to create quick amphibious assaults (as I have suggested) and are slightly weaker than the merman/naga (as I have suggested), they would still retain their weakness on water. Especially since it requires a dedicated unit, it may not be worth it in many situations, but would allow maps with situations similar to old blitz to be balanced.

I would like to hear less why it is not necessary (given the correct map it is certain to be unnecessary), but why it would be unbalancing in favor of the Knalgans or what would have to happen in order to make it balanced (ie. if it can be proved that the unit has to be so weak that it cannot achieve its purpose than this suggestion is moot).

My attack of a merman at day was done under no different situations than a defense. Gryphons have the same defense in villages as in water. Thus, the same situation is possible in a defense situation. If one 14 gold merman can defeat a 24 gold gryphon, then there is obviously problems with using gryphons to beat off mermen.

[anakayub]

comparatively weak on plains

Their hardiness (resistances/elusivefoot) compensates in some way for their low def/HP. It does have some advantages and disadvantages, not a clear out disadvantage. But when reading again I think you're referring to between terrain comparison within Knalgans rather than a faction-faction comparison on plains. The only unit in any faction with a clear advantage on a quick recall on plains are cav's and they're weak to pierce.

no magical abilities (all other factions do)

Northeners don't too, and neither do Drakes at day too (4-3 from an augur doesn't really count). Each faction has different strategies for making a breakthrough attack. But I think you know this already.

awkward scouts

It's not awkward, but unique . No different to scouts of other factions really. All have their unique uses, which I think you know. An elvish scout is unlike a bat which is unlike a cav/horseman and so on (and thus different in their uses).

My attack of a merman at day was done under no different situations than a defense.

Not really. When defending, his merman has to come to you. You have the advantage of being able to reinforce (as you're closer to your keep) and healing from a village. As 1 merman will not kill a gryphon (or a land unit which would be better to put on a land village accessible to water units), he/she will have to use multiple units to kill it. The exposure to a swift counterattack might be a good defense by deterrence.

I think it's best if we see a replay of the clear out imbalance you're talking about. This thread is similar to the recent thread on drake balance. We're going nowhere on this.

P.S. Price comparisons are useless when comparing units. Another is that the onus is always on the poster to prove imbalance in the current state rather than how change would be "imbalancing" i.e. why it's necessary.

[irrevenant]

agreed, but what I am saying is that their poor efficiency in water is too poor.

Okay. Then you really need to provide evidence that this is the case. Wesnoth's most experienced players find the factions to be well balanced against each other on the standard maps. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove your case.

I would like to hear less why it is not necessary (given the correct map it is certain to be unnecessary)

Sorry, but that's not likely to happen. Wesnoth's balance is considered "innocent until proven guilty". "It's not necessary" is a good and strong defence and, as prosecutor, you need to overcome that defence if you want your idea accepted.

I repeat: The onus is on your argument, and you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

[F50]

I am not saying that *Wesnoth* is unbalanced. Balance is relative to maps (given the correct map most balancing efforts are certain to be unnecessary). The current maps are balanced relative to the factions so there is *no* imbalance. I am saying that an extra (weak-ish) unit could help to allow a larger terrain variation in maps because Knalgans can't properly exert influence on water currently. This is why I do not have burden of proof beyond "it wouldn't hurt", I am not saying there is imbalance for the current common maps. I am not, as you put it, a prosecutor.

"Balance Is Relative to Maps" (except in extreme cases, which shouldn't exist anymore given how long Wesnoth has been around) should get itself an acronym.

no magical abilities (all other factions do)

Sorry about that. I was thinking of Augr (which most definitely does count when removing dwarves from mountains although probably not elves from forests) and the Orcish assassin which isn't a magical unit but still removes dwarves from mountains and elves from forests *very* effectively.

Their hardiness (resistances/elusivefoot) compensates in some way for their low def/HP.

"In some way" isn't good enough. Elvish fighters and spearmen/fencers kill them pretty easily out on the plains. At very least it puts them below par of the other fighting units. I thought that was given. I think it could be proved on an all-plains map with good players, but I myself am not a "good" player so I can't really create a replay to show that an all-plains map is imbalanced for Knalgans vs loyalists (no horsemen allowed for good measure) or Rebels vs Knalgans.

It's not awkward, but unique . No different to scouts of other factions really. All have their unique uses, which I think you know. An elvish scout is unlike a bat which is unlike a cav/horseman and so on (and thus different in their uses).

probably right. But still it is the most expensive scout out there (the horseman doesn't count since the loyalists can use the cav if they want).

As 1 merman will not kill a gryphon (or a land unit which would be better to put on a land village accessible to water units), he/she will have to use multiple units to kill it.

You are *assuming* that a player would attack with one merman or that I have all other hexes filled/ZoCed (which would be self-defeating). Remember that the merman only had one round fighting it (he used it to attack another unit), so it *is* exactly the same as if it attacked me. A second merman would've only had to hit it once. 1/2^3 = 1/2*1/2*1/2= 1/8 = ~16% chance I would've survived the second attack from a second merman merman. Shall we contemplate the third open spot in the old blitz village, the three open spots on the center island in the Channel, or just the two a gryphon on land but next to water (not even trying to exert influence on water) would get?

Price comparisons are useless when comparing units.

I beg to differ. If the unit claimed to be a counter is slightly stronger than the offending unit, then it is a counter right? Not if that unit costs twice as much.

[anakayub]

We're seriously nitpicking each other; let's see a replay of merman abuse on Weldyn Channel (or any other maps with water) against Knalgans.

[pauxlo]

We're seriously nitpicking each other; let's see a replay of merman abuse on Weldyn Channel (or any other maps with water) against Knalgans.

If I understand right, F50 didn't assert that the Knalgans on default Maps are unbalanced, but that their weekness on water hinders the existence (and creation) of balanced maps with more water.

[anakayub]

Which is why a replay would be good, as Weldyn Channel, Hornshark etc. has quite an amount of water. Does the ability of other factions to recruit water units on these maps really bring a disadvantage to Knalgans considering these maps have lots of significant water already?

Of course, designing a water-dominant map would be impossible anyways, as water battles were meant to be complimentary to the main land-based battles (as far as I know), not to mention thinking of their effects on the other factions without water units. Map design always had to take a middle ground between all factions, and I don't think it's too restrictive (however I don't play user-made maps) in the current setup.

[TL]

I am saying that an extra (weak-ish) unit could help to allow a larger terrain variation in maps because Knalgans can't properly exert influence on water currently.

I think the emphasis here is on "help to". Even if knalgans had a specialized water unit of their own, I am skeptical that the game would be able to actually benefit from water-heavy maps; water units tend to have relatively strong defense (in water, anyhow) and relatively weak offense, making water vs. water fights generally pretty dull. Essentially you are suggesting to sacrifice some factional variation for an increase in map variation that I think would generally be of dubious value.

[anakayub]

Here's a Hornshark that I observed, where the Loys lost against Knalgans. Here in this game, more mermans would have probably led to a faster loss in my opinion. Trying to use mermans to steal villages via the periphery would lead to lots of land loss (Although I did think that the loss was due to the Loy player overextending).

And I have to very much agree with TL's point above. No objections at all.

[taemyr]

Here's a Hornshark that I observed, where the Loys lost against Knalgans. Here in this game, more mermans would have probably led to a faster loss in my opinion.

I disagree, although it must be said that I am very much a noob. I do believe having one additional mermaid in the north east to prevent the footpad running around stealing villages would pay off.

[anakayub]

Here's a Hornshark that I observed, where the Loys lost against Knalgans. Here in this game, more mermans would have probably led to a faster loss in my opinion.

I disagree, although it must be said that I am very much a noob. I do believe having one additional mermaid in the north east to prevent the footpad running around stealing villages would pay off.

You forgot to quote my sentence in parenthesis:

(Although I did think that the loss was due to the Loy player overextending).

The Loy player never did really chase the footpad, and did not have an impact at all on the decisive land battle as he never really moved back his troops (only a spearman/cav(?) to reclaim a village) and instead kept them engaged. I don't see as well how more merman in place of the other land units in place at the final battle there would have helped him there as well. One must remember that getting a merman means sacrificing gold he could have used for his HI/mage/cav/horseman. Maybe someone better than me can say more about this game.

[Wintermute]

One common mistake in playing knalgans is to ignore their ability to threaten a location with massive damage. You don't have to have a unit in a village for it to be safe, in some cases. If you have a gryphon/thief, or a thunderer/ulf positioned "correctly", lone units would think twice about stealing villages. And as was commented on above, if you are playing against several fish, it should be possible to make a push on land, which is where you want to be fighting anyway.

[F50]

I think the emphasis here is on "help to". Even if knalgans had a specialized water unit of their own, I am skeptical that the game would be able to actually benefit from water-heavy maps; water units tend to have relatively strong defense (in water, anyhow) and relatively weak offense, making water vs. water fights generally pretty dull. Essentially you are suggesting to sacrifice some factional variation for an increase in map variation that I think would generally be of dubious value.

There would be a very small factional variation, as the merman hunter has more in common with the poacher while the suggested unit is much like the bowman (except weaker). A water-heavy map shouldn't exist. I am thinking again of Old Blitz. Water is in the middle, with a crucial village exposed. The main battle is generally on land, but there can exist a sea-battle for the center.

To repeat (since several people have said "water-heavy"), I am not talking about a solely water-battle map, but one where control of a part of the sea boasts some economic (village) or severe tactical advantage

I have given up Hornshark Island as an example since you pointed out how far one would have to seriously overextend to get the village. Old blitz is does not require that, and I am not sure even old blitz has enough of a disadvantage to be regarded as proof for this (although I believe it does).

While one may make a push on land, it is difficult to do some mermen have decided to keep a village with only two land squares next to it. In old blitz, If you ignore the mermen, the other two will be happy to be worth their trouble elsewhere (and be right back to help the village garrison if an attempt is made to retake the village). If you decide to attack the merman, you will have at least 3 existing units busy for 3 turns, making it much more difficult to stage a land attack (you are also losing 4 gp/turn while the village is held).

[Trau]

Maps where the ability to dominate water is disproportionately useful are unbalanced, as would be maps where it would be gamewinning to dominate forests, mountains, swamps, and caves. If naval supremacy can cost you a game, you should take it up with the map, not the faction. It's a given that certain factions dominate certain terrain, so all maps are made with the *interplay* of terrain features in mind.

Now, keeping in mind that terrain features are supposed to have equal shares of importance in maps, I would assert that Knalgans are not disadvantaged as a whole by weakness in water. This is because, when Loyalists, Rebels, or Northerners buy fish, they have a unit only fit to fight in water. When a Knalgan player buys a gryphon rider, they have a unit that can fight in the water, but is also serviceable on nearly any terrain. The difference is that Loyalists player, by choosing to buy a water unit, forfeits some of his presence on the land while a Knalgan player can, if there is a need, simply fly his gryphon rider out onto the plains and eat a lone Bowman or something.

Of course, if a naval defense/attack is pivotal to winning a map, then the Knalgan player is screwed... but then that's not any fault of the gryphons, it's the fault of the map for demanding that.

[F50]

Now, keeping in mind that terrain features are supposed to have equal shares of importance in maps

Aren't the factions balanced in a no-water map?

If not, then I think all has been said. For the most part I am starting to agree that a Knalgan water unit probably wouldn't be worth it.

For the sake of argument though,

When a Knalgan player buys a gryphon rider, they have a unit that can fight in the water, but is also serviceable on nearly any terrain.

should be: "When a Knalgan player buys a gryphon rider, they have a fast unit serviceable on all terrains (including water), but not particularly good at fighting on any terrain."

Gryphons can't really fight in water, unless they have backup, which they usually don't, or if they are fighting against a unit that costs half as much as they do.


Last thing to note: I am surprised at how many arguments are without backup and are just there to repel the noob by weight of experience. When I look at the post count of the people who participated in this thread though, the only argument made by someone with a large post count that I think was seriously flawed was "Footpads, outlaws and fugitives have 40% defense on swamp/shallow water. That is decent enough, since footpads have great defense ratios on flat terrains and other units have usually 40% defense on them, compared to the usual 20% on water."