A few ideas

[Casual User]

I do happen to get lots of ideas pertaining to gameplay, and since I have an unexpected vacation...

1. Why are there no units with flaming arrows(ranged non-magical fire-based attack) in the game? I understand flaming arrows weren't used half as often in real life as in the movies, but they were frequently used in sieges and against cavalry. We have an unit with a torch as hand to hand attack, so why not flaming arrows? I've been thinking about it, and the orc archer seems like the right unit for the job.

2. I personally like the concept of the elvish scout, but he's no good at anything save perhaps scouting... and not even that since an elvish archer can be an excellent scout, especially if there are woods nearby, and he can also fight. One could make the elvish scout more powerful, but it doesn't sound like a good idea. Rather, how about giving him ambush? Think about it, it would help with his scouting since the ennemy wouldn't see him and it could open up a lot of strategic possibilities(using him as a sort of assassin for highly weakened units, etc...)

3. I've been thinking about it, and how about giving some attacks a parry bonus? What it would do would be to reduce by one the ennemy's number of attacks against this attack. There would of course be some balancing needed, but this would be great for some units (not to mention be more efficient against brute force or untrained ennemies with less attacks, which is well in-character). I admit I haven't looked at the source code, but it doesn't even seem excessively hard to code: there must be a function or something (what is Wesnoth coded with?) for slowing and removing slowed from an enemy. All you would have to do would be to 'slow' ennemy at the beginning of battle and 'remove slow' at the end (granted, it could create problems with already slowed units). This is obviously tailor-made for the duelist, but I think it would be pretty in-character for the elvish fighter (after some balancing) because I see him as more the fencer than the savage swordsman (of course, it would only be for hand to hand).

4. This one is not very much according to KISS guidelines, but I'll include it anyway : we have ambush, how about creating a stealth system? It just seems weird to me to have am rpg-style strategy game, without stealth. The way I see it is that it would work like ambush, except you are sure ambush units don't get noticed whereas there would be a certain percentage, depending on terrain and troop type, to be noticed (sort of like 90% for plains, 50% for forest, etc...).

P.S. Sorry again about the long post, it's a personal problem.

[Dragonking]

Hi
Ad. 1: I like this idea very much! Northeners should have one more unit with fire, which could help them defeat woses.

Ad. 2: I think ambush is so powerfun ability, that it would make this unit very unbalanced. And some people at this forum proposed rathere remove ambush/nightstalk from game than giving it to more units.

Ad. 3: Slow attack is one of most powreful attack types in game - imagine unit that can easly move at first line of forces, witout fearing horseman cause his attack will be slowed bu parry bonus. It it will not work on def like I showed now, It will still allow to attack units with 2 attack without any fear. So IMO it's too powerful idea

Ad. 4: Look at Ad 2. This would be powerful WAY too much - just like playing chess with closed eyes. And those % for ctn (chance to notice) - it makes game luck even more important than abilites of players

[Monkey]

How could a horseman at high speed throught a forest hide himself like a ranger?
One good idea for elvish scout could be the ability to move-attack-move to incentivate hit-run tactics.

[turin]

1. Why are there no units with flaming arrows(ranged non-magical fire-based attack) in the game? I understand flaming arrows weren't used half as often in real life as in the movies, but they were frequently used in sieges and against cavalry. We have an unit with a torch as hand to hand attack, so why not flaming arrows? I've been thinking about it, and the orc archer seems like the right unit for the job.

I think this is a great idea. I don't know if you would give it to the orcish archer, but definitely to the crossbowman and, if implemented, the slurbow. The crossbowman has, IIRC, a 10-3 ranged pierce attack, so give him an alternative 10-2 ranged fire attack (it takes time to light the arrow).

2. I personally like the concept of the elvish scout, but he's no good at anything save perhaps scouting... and not even that since an elvish archer can be an excellent scout, especially if there are woods nearby, and he can also fight. One could make the elvish scout more powerful, but it doesn't sound like a good idea. Rather, how about giving him ambush? Think about it, it would help with his scouting since the ennemy wouldn't see him and it could open up a lot of strategic possibilities(using him as a sort of assassin for highly weakened units, etc...)

IMHO, ambush is already used too much. I don't think we want elves to be the faction that specializes in invisibility, and they already have two lines that have ambush.
I think all we should do is reduce the cost, to 16 or 17.

3. I've been thinking about it, and how about giving some attacks a parry bonus? What it would do would be to reduce by one the ennemy's number of attacks against this attack. There would of course be some balancing needed, but this would be great for some units (not to mention be more efficient against brute force or untrained ennemies with less attacks, which is well in-character). I admit I haven't looked at the source code, but it doesn't even seem excessively hard to code: there must be a function or something (what is Wesnoth coded with?) for slowing and removing slowed from an enemy. All you would have to do would be to 'slow' ennemy at the beginning of battle and 'remove slow' at the end (granted, it could create problems with already slowed units). This is obviously tailor-made for the duelist, but I think it would be pretty in-character for the elvish fighter (after some balancing) because I see him as more the fencer than the savage swordsman (of course, it would only be for hand to hand).

Sounds complex... I think the best way to simulate good defensive parrying skills is to give the unit good defenses, and the duelist already has this.

However, perhaps the duelist SHOULD be given a less powerful slow attack (which would pretty well simulate what you want this to do, but doesn't involve more coding). Could be interesting.

4. This one is not very much according to KISS guidelines, but I'll include it anyway : we have ambush, how about creating a stealth system? It just seems weird to me to have am rpg-style strategy game, without stealth. The way I see it is that it would work like ambush, except you are sure ambush units don't get noticed whereas there would be a certain percentage, depending on terrain and troop type, to be noticed (sort of like 90% for plains, 50% for forest, etc...).

Um, yeah, this isn't that KISS. Not a bad idea for one that is really anti-WesnothPhilosophy, though.

P.S. Sorry again about the long post, it's a personal problem.

I actually enjoy responding and reading long posts...

[xtifr]

1. I like this proposal! It's a simple idea, using existing game elements, but it adds some nice variety. I wish more proposals were as simple-but-interesting as this one.

2. The scouts are supposed to be scouts, not fighters. The elvish scout already has the best movement of any unit; I don't really think it needs anything more. Plus, as others have said, "ambush, bleh".

3. I agree with Turin, this sounds a bit too complex. I don't hate the idea, but I can't say I like it either.

4. not KISS, not for Wesnoth, IMO.

[romnajin]

I definetly agree with the decrease of the scouts cost; almost all the other scouts in the game are cheaper. One real quick, off topic question is, what does the acronym IMHO mean, I originaly thought(when I saw someone use it in humorous embarrasment) that it meant, as a joking insult to oneself, "I am a ho" but I lost that idea when it was used as a "laughing acronym" at someone else, you don't laugh at someone by saying "I am a ho" Thanks, and sorry for going off topic.

[scott]

In My Humble Opinion

I personally think it's redundant because unless I otherwise specify what I'm writing is someone else's opinion, you always assume I am telling you MY opinion! Whether or not it's humble... you'll have to decide. I can say it's humble but is it really?

[turin]

The decrease in scouts cost was just an aside... if anyone thinks its an idea worth pursuing, why not start a new thread, so we don't pollute this one? :]

In My Humble Opinion

I personally think it's redundant because unless I otherwise specify what I'm writing is someone else's opinion, you always assume I am telling you MY opinion! Whether or not it's humble... you'll have to decide. I can say it's humble but is it really?

If you say "IMHO", and then state a fact, you are saying that you have no evidence/proof that this fact is true, it is just your opinion that is true. If it is just stated, it is assumed you actually have knowledge about the subject.

[romnajin]

In My Humble Opinion

I personally think it's redundant because unless I otherwise specify what I'm writing is someone else's opinion, you always assume I am telling you MY opinion! Whether or not it's humble... you'll have to decide. I can say it's humble but is it really?

If you say "IMHO", and then state a fact, you are saying that you have no evidence/proof that this fact is true, it is just your opinion that is true. If it is just stated, it is assumed you actually have knowledge about the subject.

Thanks

[dtw]

like the flaming arrows idea - it was called "pitch" as well if that helps IIRC

[Gafgarion]

1. Why are there no units with flaming arrows(ranged non-magical fire-based attack) in the game? I understand flaming arrows weren't used half as often in real life as in the movies, but they were frequently used in sieges and against cavalry. We have an unit with a torch as hand to hand attack, so why not flaming arrows? I've been thinking about it, and the orc archer seems like the right unit for the job.

I like this idea a lot, but if it was implemented we'd have to make sure not to overuse it. I'd personally like to see it used as a distinguishing feature... Absolutely not used by Elvish units, but maybe as an Orcish archer ability, or an alternate upgrade for the Bowman.

[turin]

1. Why are there no units with flaming arrows(ranged non-magical fire-based attack) in the game? I understand flaming arrows weren't used half as often in real life as in the movies, but they were frequently used in sieges and against cavalry. We have an unit with a torch as hand to hand attack, so why not flaming arrows? I've been thinking about it, and the orc archer seems like the right unit for the job.

I like this idea a lot, but if it was implemented we'd have to make sure not to overuse it. I'd personally like to see it used as a distinguishing feature... Absolutely not used by Elvish units, but maybe as an Orcish archer ability, or an alternate upgrade for the Bowman.

I think giving the crossbowman a flaming arrow attack would be fine. Right now they seem kind of weak.

[Trias]

1. I think there should be the choice to either level using the crossbow tree or a flaming bow side because you cant really light crossbow bolts and its not only not realistic but also it would ruin the balance of this unit seeing as it is already powerful, plus the leveling tree for the archer needs to be expanded, it seems as if nobody uses it..

2. I dont think he should get ambush, seeing as how a horse running through trees and branches wouldnt be very quiet at all, perhaps giving him a more powerful bow attack or more health or lowering the cost are all ways of making him more useful.

3. I agree with turin here in giving him a lessened-in-power slow attack as an alternative.

4. Nah i dont like the stealth system, its like rolling the dice every single place you move.

[Casual User]

Thanks for all the replies. As a reply to the .... I'm getting repetitive!

1. Everyone likes this idea! Trias wrote: "1. I think there should be the choice to either level using the crossbow tree or a flaming bow side because you cant really light crossbow bolts and its not only not realistic but also it would ruin the balance of this unit seeing as it is already powerful, plus the leveling tree for the archer needs to be expanded, it seems as if nobody uses it." I agree. Fire damage might be too powerful for a non-mage level 1 unit (you can light crossbow bolts on fire, nut it's more dangerous since crossbow bolts are shorter than arrows so the crossbow can catch fire). It could be called orcish raider or something (okay, I'm no good at making up names)...

2. Everyone hates this idea, and I agree with everyone on this one. Monkey wrote: "One good idea for elvish scout could be the ability to move-attack-move to incentivate hit-run tactics." That is a very good idea. Some units could get a 'flee' ability that means they can attack, than move for the rest of their moves (but not attack again). It could
be hard to code though...

3. I think this idea was misunderstood. Good defense does not simulate good parrying skills because it applies to ranged attacks too... (you get a duelist, I get my longbow, I shoot at him, let's see if he can parry) I don't think a 'disarm' attack that would slow the ennemy would be good because there is no reason for the ennemy to move more slowly because he has been disarmed. What I proposed was a temporary 'slow', i.e. the ennemy would be slowed only while he fights against a parrying attack. All I was saying was to reduce the ennemy's number of attacks by one when it fights against a parrying attack. It is powerful, but no more than other special abilities. It wouldn't require any extra coding; the point of what I was writing about a 'slow' function was an example of how existing code could be manipulated to do this special abiloty. Re-read what I actually wrote carefully...

4. Only a suggestion people... But seriously now, don't you think it's strange that an rpg-style strategy game doesn't have a stealth mechanic. Speaking of which, chance not to be noticed could be based on the defense level of that unit on that terrain (for example that defense - 30%, so a unit that has 40% defense in plains would have a 10% chance to go unnoticed). I did say it wasn't very much according to the KISS mentality...

P.S. Sorry again about the long post, and what does IIRC mean?

[turin]

Thanks for all the replies. As a reply to the .... I'm getting repetitive!

1. Everyone likes this idea! Trias wrote: "1. I think there should be the choice to either level using the crossbow tree or a flaming bow side because you cant really light crossbow bolts and its not only not realistic but also it would ruin the balance of this unit seeing as it is already powerful, plus the leveling tree for the archer needs to be expanded, it seems as if nobody uses it." I agree. Fire damage might be too powerful for a non-mage level 1 unit (you can light crossbow bolts on fire, nut it's more dangerous since crossbow bolts are shorter than arrows so the crossbow can catch fire). It could be called orcish raider or something (okay, I'm no good at making up names)...

*cough*drakes*cough*.

If drakes are allowed to have several level 1 non-magical fire attacks, orcs should be allowed at least 1.

Proposed tree:
Orcish Archer (both fire and pierce) -> Orcish Crossbowman (pierce only)
Orcish Archer (both fire and pierce) -> Orcish Incinerator (both fire and pierce, pierce does not improve in damage from level 1) (name needs work)

2. Everyone hates this idea, and I agree with everyone on this one. Monkey wrote: "One good idea for elvish scout could be the ability to move-attack-move to incentivate hit-run tactics." That is a very good idea. Some units could get a 'flee' ability that means they can attack, than move for the rest of their moves (but not attack again). It could
be hard to code though...

I believe this has been proposed before... it seems very powerful. There would have to be some kind of movement penalty for attacking, right? So attacking takes up ~3 moves...

3. I think this idea was misunderstood. Good defense does not simulate good parrying skills because it applies to ranged attacks too... (you get a duelist, I get my longbow, I shoot at him, let's see if he can parry) I don't think a 'disarm' attack that would slow the ennemy would be good because there is no reason for the ennemy to move more slowly because he has been disarmed. What I proposed was a temporary 'slow', i.e. the ennemy would be slowed only while he fights against a parrying attack. All I was saying was to reduce the ennemy's number of attacks by one when it fights against a parrying attack. It is powerful, but no more than other special abilities. It wouldn't require any extra coding; the point of what I was writing about a 'slow' function was an example of how existing code could be manipulated to do this special abiloty. Re-read what I actually wrote carefully...

Interesting idea. Actually, it does seem like a very simple proposal that keeps in line with current specialties. I don't know how balanced it would be with the current duelist, but I guess it could be changed to compensate... would it be attack only, defence only, or both?

4. Only a suggestion people... But seriously now, don't you think it's strange that an rpg-style strategy game doesn't have a stealth mechanic. Speaking of which, chance not to be noticed could be based on the defense level of that unit on that terrain (for example that defense - 30%, so a unit that has 40% defense in plains would have a 10% chance to go unnoticed). I did say it wasn't very much according to the KISS mentality...

WIN_... an RPG. No stealth, if you want stealth play another game. Sorry.

P.S. Sorry again about the long post, and what does IIRC mean?

If I Recall Correctly.