Why do not limit the times of unit's counterattack?

[Tazzac]

thanks a lot for development of this game

why do not limit the times of unit's counterattack?
I mean every unit can just do a fixed number of couterattack in one turn.for example , they most can do couterattack twice.

my idea is based on that:
1.we assume that every unit own by one player move or attack in a common time period.

2.so that we assume that every unit has some Action Points what represents the common time period .the unit move to somewhere wil spend a half of the AP,the unit attack someone will spend a half of the AP.

3.the counterattack occur in defending.sometimes ,the unit defend somewhere without moving ,so it can do counterattack twice.sometimes,the unit must move to somewhere for defending and it don't attack anyone ,so it can do counterattack once.

4.In the version now ,sometimes,the unit has a strong luck ,it can do counterattack a lot of times (maybe 3-5 times).This often takes place when the village defending.This make the defending are more more valuable than attacking ,this also make the game negative.

Thanks for watch this ,I think this can make the game more active and more logical

I can just speak a little english ,sorry for that Hope u can understand what I said

[PeterPorty]

Well, the idea is to give the defender an advantage; many numbers are already a huge advantage on the game, and some units are better at defending, while others are better when attacking. This defense mechanism can also sometimes be a problem, specially when the opposing player has many weak units, since they can attack the defender and be killed, leaving a space open for the next to attack. If units did not always counter-attack, it'd be quite hard to beat say an Iron Mauler with a band of level 0s/1s.

[Tazzac]

Well, the idea is to give the defender an advantage; many numbers are already a huge advantage on the game, and some units are better at defending, while others are better when attacking. This defense mechanism can also sometimes be a problem, specially when the opposing player has many weak units, since they can attack the defender and be killed, leaving a space open for the next to attack. If units did not always counter-attack, it'd be quite hard to beat say an Iron Mauler with a band of level 0s/1s.

Yep , I agree with u.
but ,I think my idea seems more logical although it's an Iron Mauler a band of level 0s/1s
and if my idea come ture ,It will be closer to RTS.
Now ,It reminds me of JAGGED ALLIANCE 2

[artisticdude]

and if my idea come ture ,It will be closer to RTS.

But that's just the thing. Wesnoth isn't an RTS. It's a TBS. Changing that would change the very nature of the game. And RTS isn't necessarily superior to TBS. It's like comparing fencing to chess.

[Tazzac]

and if my idea come ture ,It will be closer to RTS.

Changing that would change the very nature of the game. And RTS isn't necessarily superior to TBS. It's like comparing fencing to chess.

Yep,u said right
and I mean closer to RTS ,not want to change wesnoth to RTS
I said that because the RTS is demanding on the connection speed .if it more closer to RTS ,it's more possible for us to build a game like that:all players share some time in a same turn ,they make plan like the version now of the wesnoth ,and when the last player press "end turn" ,all play plans achieve together,it can call Sametime-turn-based-game .
sorry for my english ,hope u can understand what i said

[PeterPorty]

There are games like this; Wesnoth isn't one. We don't *want* it to be closer to an RTS.

It's like comparing fencing to chess.

Yeah, you can't do that, we all know fencing is the worst sport in history.

[pauxlo]

It's like comparing fencing to chess.

Yeah, you can't do that, we all know fencing is the worst sport in history.

Actually, fencing is a nice turn based strategy game.

It still is not really comparable to chess: It has only one (or two?) type(s) of units (if one can call the marked points that), it has hidden information, and a lot larger playing area (in the default mode, though you could also play it on a 8×8 board). And the colors are red and blue instead of black and white

(Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of this implementation, though the idea stems from literature.)

[artisticdude]

It's like comparing fencing to chess.

Yeah, you can't do that, we all know fencing is the worst sport in history.

Oh, I wouldn't say that, I've been doing it for years.

Perhaps that wasn't the best analogy (actually, a nickname for fencing is "physical chess"), but my point is that you can have two games that are similar - inasmuch as they both require strategy (just like fencing and chess) - but different in the way the core mechanics work (just as the 'core mechanics' of fencing are different from those of chess). Both are equally enjoyable, but in different ways and (to some extent) for different reasons.

Fencing is like RTS: Constant movement, quick thinking, quick decisions, sometimes instinctive actions. Chess is like TBS (well, actually it IS TBS ): It relies more on careful planning, weighing your options and trying to make informed decisions within a reasonable amount of time. They both require strategy, but very different kinds of strategy. Use one's strategy when trying to do the other, and you'll have problems.

[lipk]

This idea sounds like a nice FPI candidate

[PeterPorty]

Oh, I wouldn't say that, I've been doing it for years.

Don't you say? That's why I said it, lol.

[Tazzac]

Well, the idea is to give the defender an advantage; many numbers are already a huge advantage on the game, and some units are better at defending, while others are better when attacking. This defense mechanism can also sometimes be a problem, specially when the opposing player has many weak units, since they can attack the defender and be killed, leaving a space open for the next to attack. If units did not always counter-attack, it'd be quite hard to beat say an Iron Mauler with a band of level 0s/1s.

I thought "an Iron Mauler with a band of level 0s/1s" for a while ,I think this need data support.
I thought about that ,if i have many weak unit ,I will not spend them to attack the defender and be killed ,leaving a space open for the next to attack ,unless the defender is a leader,I think your tactical is a few cases.
I think what I said the "unit can do counterattack for more than 3 times" ,this often make the player who want to attack lose his superiority .
but I don't have any data support ,It's just my feeling

[Tazzac]

This idea sounds like a nice FPI candidate

what is "a nice FPI candidate" ?
sorry for my english ,I can't understand what u said ,and goolge can't help me about this

[JaMiT]

This make the defending are more more valuable than attacking ,

To some extent, yes.

this also make the game negative.

Why? How is it a negative?

and I mean closer to RTS ,not want to change wesnoth to RTS

Now here is something I would consider a negative. I generally get frustrated with RTS games and would rather not see a game I like become more like one I do not.

This idea sounds like a nice FPI candidate

Just a candidate? To me it sounds like #10, albeit perhaps on a different scale than most of its proposals.

Of course, it was not specified what the limit on counterattacks should be. One might propose that each unit be limited to six counterattacks per turn, but units get an extra counterattack (for that turn) as a reward each time it scores a kill while counterattacking. This sort of proposal could then fall under "already done".

what is "a nice FPI candidate" ?

"Frequently Proposed Ideas" are covered in this forum's "must read" sticky.

You may find the [wiki]Wesnoth Acronyms and Slang[/wiki] entry in the Wesnoth wiki to be helpful.

[Tazzac]

This make the defending are more more valuable than attacking ,

To some extent, yes.

this also make the game negative.

Why? How is it a negative?

and I mean closer to RTS ,not want to change wesnoth to RTS

Now here is something I would consider a negative. I generally get frustrated with RTS games and would rather not see a game I like become more like one I do not.

This idea sounds like a nice FPI candidate

Just a candidate? To me it sounds like #10, albeit perhaps on a different scale than most of its proposals.

Of course, it was not specified what the limit on counterattacks should be. One might propose that each unit be limited to six counterattacks per turn, but units get an extra counterattack (for that turn) as a reward each time it scores a kill while counterattacking. This sort of proposal could then fall under "already done".

what is "a nice FPI candidate" ?

"Frequently Proposed Ideas" are covered in this forum's "must read" sticky.

If the defending are more valuable than attacking ,rational person will not choose attacking ,and I think most person is rational,so we make defending like fishing ,and this maybe efficiency sometime,but fishing way is a passive(negative) way.

[Tazzac]

This make the defending are more more valuable than attacking ,

To some extent, yes.

this also make the game negative.

Why? How is it a negative?

and I mean closer to RTS ,not want to change wesnoth to RTS

Now here is something I would consider a negative. I generally get frustrated with RTS games and would rather not see a game I like become more like one I do not.

This idea sounds like a nice FPI candidate

Just a candidate? To me it sounds like #10, albeit perhaps on a different scale than most of its proposals.

Of course, it was not specified what the limit on counterattacks should be. One might propose that each unit be limited to six counterattacks per turn, but units get an extra counterattack (for that turn) as a reward each time it scores a kill while counterattacking. This sort of proposal could then fall under "already done".

what is "a nice FPI candidate" ?

"Frequently Proposed Ideas" are covered in this forum's "must read" sticky.

You may find the [wiki]Wesnoth Acronyms and Slang[/wiki] entry in the Wesnoth wiki to be helpful.

I found that ,sorry for my mistake