Terrain specific skirmishing

rezaf · Post by **rezaf** » August 21st, 2005, 8:45 pm

Not, this is no big deal if not added, I just thought it might be a nice addition/alternative to have skirmish only affect certain terrain types. For example, forest skirmishing would allow a unit to ignore ZOC in forest only...

Like I said, I don't think it's an urgent thing to add to Wesnoth, but I'm curious what other people would think about it.

Discuss!

Disto · Post by **Disto** » August 21st, 2005, 9:02 pm

It would definetly makes some units more interesting possible not overpowering them too much.

Casual User · Post by **Casual User** » August 22nd, 2005, 2:41 am

You do realize that THE most sensible application would be rangers getting skirmisher in forests ... (they already feel a little overpowered)

Post by **irrevenant** » August 22nd, 2005, 1:06 pm

There's a bit of an intuitiveness issue here. If (eg.) an Elf Ranger has skirmish (forest only), what does that actually mean?

Can he skirmish:
(a) so long as the target is in the appropriate terrain?
(b) so long as all the hexes he passes through are the appropriate terrain?
(c) so long as he starts in the appropriate terrain?
(d) so long as all the hexes he passes through that are next to an enemy unit are the appropriate terrain?

IMO (d) probably makes the most sense, but it's probably also the hardest option to communicate.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » August 22nd, 2005, 1:08 pm

D. "This unit ignores all enemy zone of control that is in this terrain".

Multiplayer Scenarios / Campaigns · Post by **Rhuvaen** » August 22nd, 2005, 1:40 pm

I find the idea of making skirmish dependent on terrain interesting, if difficult to foresee in-game. It might also be interesting to consider ZOC dependent on terrain, for instance:
1. a unit will only extend a ZOC into adjacent hexes it can MOVE into (Heavy Infantrymen and Horsemen won't extend into mountains, for instance)
2. a unit will only extend a ZOC into adjacent hexes if they take 3 or less moves to move into

Tomsik · Post by **Tomsik** » August 22nd, 2005, 1:44 pm

at least IMO its good idea

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » August 22nd, 2005, 4:59 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:D. "This unit ignores all enemy zone of control that is in this terrain".

Exactly. Skirmisher is supposed to be about the ZoC, not the enemies.

Rhuvaen wrote:1. a unit will only extend a ZOC into adjacent hexes it can MOVE into (Heavy Infantrymen and Horsemen won't extend into mountains, for instance)

I like this. Logical extension would be that those units cannot attack a unit in that terrain. This, however, would give foot to more guidelines of tactic: "Cavalry should not fight against a mountain, infantry should not fight against the sea...".

Which may not be something that we want.

Post by **Darth Fool** » August 24th, 2005, 7:44 pm

I think that this is an interesting idea. Of course, it goes under the broad category that the engine needs a little post 1.0 work to make abilities a little more flexible such that you can specify terrain modifiers for any ability. Skirmish might need a little more coding to do than ambush, since, as was pointed out, you would want it to work based upon the ZOC hex. Still, basically a good idea.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » August 24th, 2005, 8:15 pm

Darth Fool wrote:Skirmish might need a little more coding to do than ambush,

?!?

Ambush takes a ton of code and is probably still buggy. If we get terrain- or time- specific Skirmish, then we may be able to convince the populace to remove invisibility.

Post by **Darth Fool** » August 24th, 2005, 10:05 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Darth Fool wrote:Skirmish might need a little more coding to do than ambush,
?!?

Ambush takes a ton of code and is probably still buggy. If we get terrain- or time- specific Skirmish, then we may be able to convince the populace to remove invisibility.

I meant specifically to add in the terrain specific filtering. Also note the "might". I do not see getting terrain specific skirmish as a substitute for ambush.

dtw · Post by **dtw** » August 24th, 2005, 10:40 pm

would that mean shadows and nightguants skirmish on all terrain at night?

Tieom · Post by **Tieom** » August 25th, 2005, 7:29 am

dibblethewrecker wrote:would that mean shadows and nightguants skirmish on all terrain at night?

With their Backstab attack, it would be a fair bit more useful than their current ability, IMO.

Might balance out the choice between the Wraith and the Shadow a bit, too. Someone want to explain how the Shadow doesn't violate RIPLIB when it loses the Ghost's ranged attack?

rezaf · Post by **rezaf** » August 25th, 2005, 7:30 am

Tieom wrote:Someone want to explain how the Shadow doesn't violate RIPLIB when it loses the Ghost's ranged attack?

To share what I learned myself recently:

RIPLIB - Reducing In Power Levelling Is Bad: means that when a unit upgrades, at least one of its options should be strictly superior to the original unit.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » August 25th, 2005, 9:32 am

Tieom wrote:Someone want to explain how the Shadow doesn't violate RIPLIB when it loses the Ghost's ranged attack?

It DOES violate RIPLIB. The Shadow loses its ranged attack, and the Wraith loses 20% of its resistances to Blade and Pierce and 10% to impact. This still annoys me every time a Ghost I control advances. I have an alternative proposal that fixes the issue, but it's sort of faded away, and certainly won't get in before 1.0.