[engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
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:
[engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Several times I've wished that I could swap the positions of 2 units standing adjacent to each other that should technically be able to change spots (each expending one movement point), but due to factors such as ZOC (Zone of Control), they are unable to.
Typically the situation is that I've got one unit that has been surrounded (and heavily damaged) by several enemies. I have an adjacent unit that may be more heavily armored or currently have higher health, but due to the ZOC I can't get them to switch positions, even though they both technically only need to move one cell (to which the other is currently occupying).
I've attached an image to help illustrate the situation:
In this example, I'd want to change the positions of the unit with 40 hit points and the unit with 100 hit points. This would allow the 100 hp unit to act as a meat shield, and only allow 2 (possibly 3) attacks against my 40 hp unit.
HOWEVER
- There is only one movement option for the 40hp unit, which is currently BLOCKED by the 100hp unit.
- The ideal final resting point of the 100hp unit at the end of the turn is currently BLOCKED by the 40 hp unit.
- If I move the 100hp unit back a space (giving the 40hp unit space to retreat a single cell), then the 100hp unit has WASTED his chance to move further into the ZOC and can therefore no longer replace the 40hp unit's previous location (and thus serve as a meat shield).
Technically, it seems like I should be able to do this, expending the movement totals for both units.
I'm proposing there be an ability to "swap" (or simultaneously move) units that are adjacent in ZOC situations. This would be a life-saving feature in many circumstances.
I hope this makes sense (and is in the realm of possibility).
Thanks!
Edit: Er, found a repeat post regarding this, but it's 5 years old... There are some arguments against this, (getting AI to use it) - I don't know how AI works, so I can't weigh in there... However, I think the other arguments are not well made - this is a movement that should technically be possible, and adds flexibility to ZOC conditions (enabling interesting defensive maneuvers). Also to clarify: I do not suggest allowing swapping with allies, only with one's own units.
Typically the situation is that I've got one unit that has been surrounded (and heavily damaged) by several enemies. I have an adjacent unit that may be more heavily armored or currently have higher health, but due to the ZOC I can't get them to switch positions, even though they both technically only need to move one cell (to which the other is currently occupying).
I've attached an image to help illustrate the situation:
In this example, I'd want to change the positions of the unit with 40 hit points and the unit with 100 hit points. This would allow the 100 hp unit to act as a meat shield, and only allow 2 (possibly 3) attacks against my 40 hp unit.
HOWEVER
- There is only one movement option for the 40hp unit, which is currently BLOCKED by the 100hp unit.
- The ideal final resting point of the 100hp unit at the end of the turn is currently BLOCKED by the 40 hp unit.
- If I move the 100hp unit back a space (giving the 40hp unit space to retreat a single cell), then the 100hp unit has WASTED his chance to move further into the ZOC and can therefore no longer replace the 40hp unit's previous location (and thus serve as a meat shield).
Technically, it seems like I should be able to do this, expending the movement totals for both units.
I'm proposing there be an ability to "swap" (or simultaneously move) units that are adjacent in ZOC situations. This would be a life-saving feature in many circumstances.
I hope this makes sense (and is in the realm of possibility).
Thanks!
Edit: Er, found a repeat post regarding this, but it's 5 years old... There are some arguments against this, (getting AI to use it) - I don't know how AI works, so I can't weigh in there... However, I think the other arguments are not well made - this is a movement that should technically be possible, and adds flexibility to ZOC conditions (enabling interesting defensive maneuvers). Also to clarify: I do not suggest allowing swapping with allies, only with one's own units.
-
- Art Contributor
- Posts: 1700
- Joined: December 7th, 2006, 8:08 pm
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
I don't think any gameplay changes of this magnitude have been accepted for some 5 years, so by all chances this one won't be either
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Good to know! I'll try to redirect my creative juices toward my own campaigns.Blarumyrran wrote:I don't think any gameplay changes of this magnitude have been accepted for some 5 years, so by all chances this one won't be either
-
- Posts: 427
- Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:20 pm
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Skirmish units can do that already btw.
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Only if they have enough MP left.Kolbur wrote:Skirmish units can do that already btw.
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
This, in my opinion, is part of the tactical difficulty of the game - ZoC provides a tactical problem because you can't get that guy straight out of there. Do you leave him there to die, find a lurking Skirmisher, or try and kill one of the enemies to let him escape?Solikos wrote:Several times I've wished that I could swap the positions of 2 units standing adjacent to each other that should technically be able to change spots (each expending one movement point), but due to factors such as ZOC (Zone of Control), they are unable to.
EDIT: learn to finish sentences
"What do you mean, "a dwarvish dragonguard with marksman is overpowered"?"
Story of a Drake Outcast | The Nonsense Era
Played HttT-Underground Channels? Thought it was rubbish? Help us develop it here!
Story of a Drake Outcast | The Nonsense Era
Played HttT-Underground Channels? Thought it was rubbish? Help us develop it here!
-
- Inactive Developer
- Posts: 2461
- Joined: August 15th, 2008, 8:46 pm
- Location: Germany
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Btw it should be rather easy to create a non-download-requiring era modifying the default one which adds such a feature via a right-click menu and some storing/unstoring units process. Do it yourself!
projects (BfW 1.12):
A Simple Campaign: campaign draft for wml starters • Plan Your Advancements: mp mod
The Earth's Gut: sp campaign • Settlers of Wesnoth: mp scenario • Wesnoth Lua Pack: lua tags and utils
updated to 1.8 and handed over: A Gryphon's Tale: sp campaign
A Simple Campaign: campaign draft for wml starters • Plan Your Advancements: mp mod
The Earth's Gut: sp campaign • Settlers of Wesnoth: mp scenario • Wesnoth Lua Pack: lua tags and utils
updated to 1.8 and handed over: A Gryphon's Tale: sp campaign
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
And most of the code has already been written, too.Anonymissimus wrote:Btw it should be rather easy to create a non-download-requiring era modifying the default one which adds such a feature via a right-click menu and some storing/unstoring units process. Do it yourself!
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Right, but regardless of virtually any content, it still presents a "tactical problem" (defensively or offensively). Also, was that edit directed at me? If so, perhaps you should learn to punctuate properly before giving such tips!Reepurr wrote:This, in my opinion, is part of the tactical difficulty of the game - ZoC provides a tactical problem because you can't get that guy straight out of there. Do you leave him there to die, find a lurking Skirmisher, or try and kill one of the enemies to let him escape?
EDIT: learn to finish sentences
Thanks for the link. Once I am more experienced with coding WML I'll likely take a whack at implementing this into my own campaign(s).
Again, just putting an idea out there. However, as mentioned above I'll put a lid on it... It appears there have already been gobs of ideas, and nothing worth running with in quite awhile.
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
That was aimed at myself, I accidentally pressed "Submit" halfway through the post...Solikos wrote:Also, was that edit directed at me? If so, perhaps you should learn to punctuate properly before giving such tips!
"What do you mean, "a dwarvish dragonguard with marksman is overpowered"?"
Story of a Drake Outcast | The Nonsense Era
Played HttT-Underground Channels? Thought it was rubbish? Help us develop it here!
Story of a Drake Outcast | The Nonsense Era
Played HttT-Underground Channels? Thought it was rubbish? Help us develop it here!
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Anyone know the reason that this had been denied from mainline in the past? My search-voodoo isn't working, and I'd like to add this to the FPI list.
-
- Posts: 427
- Joined: May 10th, 2011, 7:20 pm
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
Jeez, I thought it was in the FPI list.
I think the devs say it complicates the game...
I think the devs say it complicates the game...
Timshel
- Pentarctagon
- Project Manager
- Posts: 5565
- Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
- Location: Earth (occasionally)
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
- Thrawn
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
- Location: bridge of SSD Chimera
Re: [engine] Friendly Unit Cell "Swap"
I think the reasons were that:
1. It lessens the value of ZoC, and changes a key strategy point of the game
2. It would have made fighting in narrow corridors more of a standstill
3. It would be an element that human players would have over ai (for single player mode)
1. It lessens the value of ZoC, and changes a key strategy point of the game
2. It would have made fighting in narrow corridors more of a standstill
3. It would be an element that human players would have over ai (for single player mode)
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott
this goes for they're/their/there as well
this goes for they're/their/there as well