Mainline: Make plague work on villages

[Maiklas3000]

But, really, the thing that makes WCs the least useful is the cost/benefit ratio. A Dark Adept is a far more potent unit due to it's increased HP, movement, and attack power. A Skeleton has better resistances, more HP, more movement. Bats have much more movement. Ghosts are far more versatile. Skeleton Archers have more HP, movement, and a ranged attack. And then there are Ghouls.

I'm a campaign player, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but let me point out that level 0 units are very special beasties that require no upkeep. This allows you to amass larger armies in certain circumstances, like where the map is large and villages are sparse. It's in long epic battles of attrition/production that level 0's shine, doubly so for the self-replicating, swarming, slow-moving Walking Corpses. You can't compare Walking Corpses directly to Ghouls or any other level 1. Ignoring upkeep, Level 0's should not be cost effective relative to level 1's.

So, it's really only a question of Vampire Bats versus Walking Corpses. If recruiting Vampire Bats would "dominate" recruiting Walking Corpses (i.e., Bats would be the best in all cases), then there could be a problem, but the units are so different that there will be times when Walking Corpses are best.

In the campaign Descent into Darkness, Walking Corpses are very effective in certain scenarios, even when there are many other recruitment options including Vampire Bats. I would suggest playing the campaign, as it may prove insightful.

Furthermore, 1.9 shifts the balance of Walking Corpses versus Vampire Bats. As pointed out by beetlenaut, 1.9 has enhanced Walking Corpses with fearless. 1.9 has also nerfed Bats by giving them the feral trait. It's somewhat mitigated in 1.9.6, with feral giving 50% defense on villages, but the main nerfing effect is that Bats get only one other trait. No more strong, intelligent Bats, for example.

See the thread "which is the best lvl 0 unit in you opnion". There, Walking Corpses were probably the winner by slight consensus, though Vampire Bats were a close second.

Finally, I second the objections in page 2 of the thread about ZOC's being breakable via plague on villages. Even if it would improve the balance, I would be opposed, as I think ZOC's should be sacred (except to skirmishers.)

[Caphriel]

Again, if anyone wishes to prove to me the power of the WC, I challenge them to beat me as the Undead using WCs effectively.

You play Northerners, I'll play Undead I second Atz's comment about WCs not being very useful against the Drakes. They're probably most useful against the Northerners and least useful against the Drakes.

But, really, the thing that makes WCs the least useful is the cost/benefit ratio. A Dark Adept is a far more potent unit due to it's increased HP, movement, and attack power. A Skeleton has better resistances, more HP, more movement. Bats have much more movement. Ghosts are far more versatile. Skeleton Archers have more HP, movement, and a ranged attack. And then there are Ghouls. Ghouls have the best all-around resistances of the UD, more HP than WCs, more movement, are Fearless, and can poison. All for only 8 more gold. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in almost any matchup (sans Undead mirror), I would recruit a Ghoul over two WCs.

And Walking Corpses generate free 8-gold units whenever they kill something. That's a pretty big benefit. Also, if you're comparing the WC to the Ghoul in terms of role, you're probably making a mistake. Walking corpses are not cost-effective meatshields at all, unless you've been making more with plague or you're going for a no-upkeep WC spam strategy, in which case they can become cost-effective.

I watched your replay, and I would say that you're still not using WCs optimally. The best way to use them, in my opinion, is to recruit a few, and get as many kills with them as possible. Well-played WC spam as a strategy is also fairly powerful under certain circumstances. But I don't think a replay of you making a poor attack on the first night, getting terrible luck, and subsequently losing is meaningful evidence for this discussion, sorry.

I'll keep an eye out for games with effective WC usage, and try to remember to save the replays to post here.

[Scatha]

Walking Corpses already all have fearless in 1.8.x, so that isn't so much of an issue for this conversation ... I'm not sure if that was the case in earlier versions, but it's not new for 1.9.

I agree with Caphriel about the WCs being best against Northerners, although generally playing Undead I tend to have a WC or two around against most opponents.

[Caphriel]

Fortuitously, here is an example of Nelson playing Undead against Drakes. The Drake player didn't play particularly well, but notice how Nelson recruited a few WCs and then plagued a whole bunch of units on turn 12. That particular micro-situation of using your other units to weaken the enemy units and then plaguing them is good WC usage.

[Zaroth]

I concur that correctly used WCs are a deadly weapon, especially in long games (zero upkeep) / versus Northeners (many week units to feed on). For an example of such usage, check out my replay topic, No-Un matchup gave me quite a lot of grief.

The WC usage is especially visible in the replay on Hamlets there, IIRC.

[Insinuator]

Ok, so I had a long reply with many great points but I accidentally closed the Tab before submitting it.

But the gist of it was replying to Atz, Caphriel, and Zaroth:

@Atz: I wasn't citing my replay as the best example, merely AN example.

@Caphriel: That Nelson vs cle replay was decidedly one-sided. It wasn't until cle was clearly defeated that Nelson was able to bring his WCs to bear and start Plaguing. It is this situation that I've seen several times, even used myself. But having them able to Plague on villages would neither have changed or quickened that game.

@Zaroth: Thank you for the replay. This replay actually gave me pause. You're a pretty good tactician, but I think your overall strategy doomed you in this one, not just your opponent's use of WCs. However, I agree with your assessment that they are a potent weapon in longer games, especially with larger maps like the new Hamlets. As Velensk points out in his critical analysis, long-term zero upkeep wars will favor the Undead. You were at a monetary disadvantage almost the whole game, which again aided your Undead opponent. So, although his WCs do play a key role in the end battle slaughter, it was his use of scouts that gave him the victory. It is not clear to me whether or not his units being able to Plague on villages would have hastened your demise. Most of the Plaguing was done in grassland, none on villages, if I recall.

[Caphriel]

I posted that replay as an example of WC usage, that less is more, and not as evidence that plague on villages would be unbalanced. Although I guess it does work against your assertion that the WC is underpowered/overpriced, because it shows a more optimal use than the way you use them.

You can argue all you want that plague on villages may not be unbalanced, but that's not a convincing reason to add it. You have to demonstrate that plague on villages would improve the game.

Now, as for a balance argument, let me present you with a hypothetical situation. You have there units in a line, one on a village and two adjacent to it, such that each can only be attacked by two units. However, for the two flanking units, one of those attacking hexes is also one of the two attacking hexes for the village. For any other faction, taking this village would require killing two of those units, potentially from three hexes. However, if the Undead can reduce the unit on the village to less than one WC's attack HP, they have a 66% chance to take that village by plague. This is a potential balance issue, because it means that even if you can create a solid line, the sort that cannot be penetrated on one turn, the Undead still have a chance to take that village.

[beetlenaut]

You can argue all you want that plague on villages may not be unbalanced, but that's not a convincing reason to add it. You have to demonstrate that plague on villages would improve the game.

I don't know about that. There is almost no work involved. My C++ skills are very rusty, but it only took me five minutes to find the line to change. (I tested it and it worked.)

[Caphriel]

I'm not sure I understand your response I didn't say it would be hard. Insinuator already wrote some WML that causes plague to work on villages, give or take. I'm asking him to demonstrate why we should want plague to work on villages. If it won't improve the game in some way, then it's purely subjective.

Insinuator obviously wants the change, primarily for flavor-ish reasons if I recall correctly, as explained in his initial post. It might be useful if he restated his reasons for wanting this change, in light of the last few pages of discussion. If I understand his reasons, it's a matter of taste

I don't want this change because I like the way it works now; being able to protect units from plague by putting them on villages is interesting, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it works. This is also a matter of taste.

In order to avoid just arguing about taste, I'm primarily counter-arguing from a balance perspective. I've seen plague cause WCs to occasionally become a steamroller in MP games, and I don't want it to become more powerful, even if it's only in rare circumstances. Insinuator has been counter-arguing that it wouldn't be too much of a buff, and that the WC might even need a buff.

My point was that as the person requesting the change, he bears the burden of proving that it would be desirable; that is, that making plague work on villages would demonstrably improve Wesnoth in some way. Otherwise, there's nothing to it but developer preference.

tl;dr: I like the way it works right now. Insinuator doesn't. It's excruciatingly unlikely that after this long of a debate, either of us is going to convince the other, and I think we're both primarily trying to convince the audience. I asked Insinuator to explain, with evidence, why we should want plague to work on villages, rather than trying to demonstrate that it wouldn't matter.

[Insinuator]

Now, as for a balance argument, let me present you with a hypothetical situation. You have there units in a line, one on a village and two adjacent to it, such that each can only be attacked by two units. However, for the two flanking units, one of those attacking hexes is also one of the two attacking hexes for the village. For any other faction, taking this village would require killing two of those units, potentially from three hexes. However, if the Undead can reduce the unit on the village to less than one WC's attack HP, they have a 66% chance to take that village by plague. This is a potential balance issue, because it means that even if you can create a solid line, the sort that cannot be penetrated on one turn, the Undead still have a chance to take that village.

A hypothetical situation that Pauxlo already presented. But first, your 66% chance is completely arbitrary. What if it is a unit with First Strike? What if it is a Footpad/Assassin/something else with great defense? Those are the situations that come up in a real game, not a hypothetical "what-if-everything-happened-just-the-way-it-should" argument. Secondly, what kind of "solid line" can be broken by two units, one of them being a level 0? Again, in a real game, only a DA would have this sort of striking power(I'm assuming we're using Standard Era in this hypothetical scenario) and it would be stupid to let yourself be in a position to get killed by a DA. Of course, that is a generalization, but the whole scenario is generalized, so lets keep with the theme, shall we?

That said, I already appreciate the power Village Plaguing could have, as I've stated numerous times before. It is the setup that I have found is not so easy. It is the getting to your hypothetical scenario. You must sacrifice gold and manueverability to get those WCs. Balance is not so simple as saying: "Well, in this situation, my Goblin Spearman would annihilate that Drake Burner, so I should always get Goblin Spearmen." It involves a delicate give and take between money, HP, terrain, movement, and a half dozen other things that I'm sure you could name.

EDIT: By the way, Mr. Caphriel, I'd love to take you up on your offer. Only one change; I'd prefer to be Random to offset the skill difference between us.

[Caphriel]

Ugh. If you really want, I can rewrite that scenario to handle all the edge cases, but I don't want to. The attacking potential of the Undead was not limited by available units, but by available hexes. If you put two Dark Adepts on those hexes, you can almost certain kill a unit, but you can't claim the village. Yes, I know some units get higher defense of villages and some units get lower defense. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

My point is that there are some circumstances where this change would alter fundamental constants of Wesnoth strategy: the penetrability of a ZoC line and how many units it takes to claim a village. That's one of the reasons I keep arguing against it. Even if those circumstances are rare, they're not, in my opinion, that much rarer than the circumstance of plaguing a unit on a village.

You could play random if it makes you more comfortable, although I don't think there's any significant advantage to picking random. Mind you, I won't be going out of my way to demonstrate anything. If the situation calls for what I consider appropriate WC use, I will use them. I suggested you play Northerners because I can guarantee I would use WCs in that matchup.

I'll PM you to schedule a game. Would you mind summarizing your arguments supporting this change? Do you have any reasons to want to see it mainlined other than the ones mentioned in your original post?

[cookie]

The idea doesn't really work. Well theoretically at least. Wesnoth has villages/houses heal. Them being unable to prevent plague seems kind of contradictory.
Also, having plague work on villages would mean the house would also be taken on that turn as well. Seems too overpowered if that was the case. (+income and unit)

[Zachron]

It's been well established that villages cancel out plague. Consider it however you will, but the fact remains. There IS an intermediary period to speak of. Plague spawned corpses do not start with the ability to move.

As for your question. With your normal range of undead units, I would generally get a bat or two, or perhaps a ghost, for village grabbing, a skeleton or two to hack down enemies, a Dark Adept, and two walking corpses. The Skeletons are your main combat units and the Dark Adepts are useful for taking down large amounts of an enemy's hp. Walking corpses are useful as cheap impact damage units, but in most cases it is better to use them to inflict the finishing blow. Passing your finishing blows onto the walking corpse is a good way to bolster your ranks with a unit with no maintenance cost. A decent strategy is to have the walking corpses take villages in heavily contested areas in order to have something more substantial(and more expendable) than a bat or a ghost. If you are on a map with several, non-primary, keeps, they are a useful front-line reinforcement. Recruit bats to grab villages turn 1 and wait until you are in a more forward position to recruit your skeletons, dark adepts, ghosts, or walking corpses. If you are in an epic-length game (any game with 25+ turns) making walking corpses and bats your force's backbone gives you the ability to muster massive forces, especially if the map has a large number of villages. With a large enough force of these suckers, they are most effective against those who kill them in one counter-attack, as the zombie struck down leaves an open space for the next zombie to attack. Take the large target down low enough, an you save the killing blow for a more powerful unit. Consider projected damage output when deciding which unit to give the killing blow to. This is a useful tactic if you are going for the "level up your leader" gambit.

[Insinuator]

It's been well established that villages cancel out plague. Consider it however you will, but the fact remains. There IS an intermediary period to speak of. Plague spawned corpses do not start with the ability to move.

No idea what point you're trying to make here. And as for the rest of your post, the "Strategies and Tips" section is a few rows up. I don't remember asking for strategic advice.