Combat rule modification - Surrounded

[Pythagoras]

Yeah - it's not a bad idea, but units in Wesnoth are already easy enough to kill. Units which are surrounded can often be killed from full health in a single turn, which borders on being a bad gameplay element (we're walking the tightrope between "too easy to kill" and "too hard to kill", which I think is good; we're quite near the sweet spot.

Yeah I get frustrated at times that one mistake can lead to unit death, especially when I'm cultivating that specific unit. It certainly increases save-loading temptation.

[dale77]

Thanks for all the comments for this idea.

My summation of the "surrounded" rule as modified by the comments is:

- attacks from one or two directions would be full defense (these are military units after all)
- attacks from directions 3 to 6 would remove 10%, 20%,30% and 40% from defense with a minimum defense of 10%.

Effect on gameplay

- the defender shouldn't allow his units to be attacked from 3 or more directions in a turn.
- the attacker should try to attack from more than two directions to maximize damage potential
- skirmishers, thieves backstab and invisible rangers have the potential to benefit most from this rule.

Just an idea, but I'm hardly an experienced Wesnothian, perhaps the naysayers are right...

[Xan]

Thanks for all the comments for this idea.

My summation of the "surrounded" rule as modified by the comments is:

- attacks from one or two directions would be full defense (these are military units after all)
- attacks from directions 3 to 6 would remove 10%, 20%,30% and 40% from defense with a minimum defense of 10%.

Effect on gameplay

- the defender shouldn't allow his units to be attacked from 3 or more directions in a turn.
- the attacker should try to attack from more than two directions to maximize damage potential

Both of those points are already true!

[gabba]

One of the reasons this idea (and the fatigue one) was originally brought up is to alleviate the somewhat frustrating randomness of the game. I.e. you surround a well-entrenched unit, and because of a streak of bad luck, half your attacking units get wiped out or badly damaged, putting you at a bad disadvantage.

Maybe the surrounding idea would be more directed to that problem if we say that only units that die (OR that fail to hit at all) when attacking a unit reduce its defense. They're sacrificing to distract the enemy so that others can take him out. To avoid encouraging swarms of cheap units, we could take into account the level of the unit that sacrificed; so, an attack from a level 3 unit that dies would be equivalent to an attack from 3 sides at once (actually, to be attacked by a hero must feel like that!). I suppose that two level 0 deaths could be equivalent to one "side".

You won't happily sacrifice a lot of lvl 3 units, so I don't think that's unbalanced. Apart from that the system would work as redefined above by dale77.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Units dying on the attack is already excessively useful in many circumstances.

[gabba]

Units dying on the attack is already excessively useful in many circumstances.

Can you specify which ones? Apart from the walking corpse case or any other where the dying unit opens up the way for another attack, I can't thing of a circumstance where it's so useful... especially if it's a high-level unit you lose.

[Corwin]

The idea seems okay, but I think it is just too complicated and not worth the extra programming effort. I think, as others have mentioned, that if you surround a unit, that unit is pretty much dead anyway and you don't need any extra help killing it.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Can you specify which ones?

any other where the dying unit opens up the way for another attack

[Cuyo Quiz]

I think gabba did it. That is the "thing", a way to break down a defensive position (unit or front), in which many attacking units can become heavily wounded with no effect.

Is there a way to recognize how much levels of units a unit has fought?. If dying is something too sparse we could use the levels fought by an unit.

Then we could give decreases of 10% after 2 lvls as accounted by dale77 or small decreases (i'm thinking 5%) for each level fought in a turn. The effects of this would dissapear when the turn ends.

Another way to control part of the "luck" since raw probability is Wesnoth's style of determining hits.

[Huche_wawa]

how about if their is a backstab stuation you lose 10% so if you are compleatly surounded you lose 30%defence but you still can't get less than 20%, this would be a lifesaver against those ####ing nagas, its more real becase if someones behind you you have to try andwatch both of them

[Chris Byler]

It's already too easy to kill most units in Wesnoth, and *really* easy to kill surrounded units. Green hp units can die in one turn WITHOUT being surrounded if their attackers are even slightly lucky. And the AI is brutally effective at taking advantage of this making it very frustrating to try to keep units alive so they can gain experience and advance. Furthermore the human player is almost always outnumbered even on "easy" levels, so the AI will benefit from any surrounding or multiple-attacker bonus FAR more often; and unless you take special measures against level 0 swarms, they'll benefit more too (like giving 50-100% less exp wasn't a big enough advantage).

And you want to increase the advantage of surrounding someone? Nearly certain death isn't good enough for you?

I can understand the retaliation-limiting proposals, although they have other problems. But *increasing* the already very high sudden deadliness of combat?

[deserter]

Well... I think that an unit should always be able to fully retaliate. (except after being slowed of course) For our surround idea here, i think that we could maybe raise damage done by attackers by certain percentage. Situation should be unaffected before the fourth attacker (not attack) however. This is because the unit can be attacked (or "surrounded") by three units without being trapped. (I know it can be trpped by only two units but it isn't most of the time. with four units its always. Exception: 0 levellers)

Main principles are following:
- Unit is considered surrounded when there is four or more enemies adjacent to it.
- When unit is surrounded, attackers would be extra-effective. Damage done by attacker would be increased by X%. (X could be anything from 10 to 30*)
- Maybe 0 level units wouldn't count. They would have the bonus though, but only if there were also four or five higher level units.


All surrounding units wouldn't have to attack. So to say, the surrounders would get kind of a slight (temporary) backstab ability. (And furthermore you wouln't have to count how many attacks have occured against every unit and check if the attacker is still occupying the adjacent hex.)

Attacker would still have to actually surround the enemy: first move four units around enemy and then attack. You couldn't attack one by one.

Now you would need less units to hit enemy and therefore take less damage, but some units might loss their MP for surrounding enemy and couldn't actually attack on anyone. Surrounding would then be highly effective with this attacking bonus, but sometimes it could work against you.

By these means the system would stay simple. There wouldn't be too much hassle and it would maybe bring up some new strategies.

I think my proposition could be fine, but I doubt it's necessity, and I have no idea if this would really make the game better. It's up to Dave. (and someone else too maybe)

I also have noticed that terrain defences won't be touched for something like this, so maybe damages would... This is not really even important issue for me, but since it seems pretty fashionable issue, I thought that I could say what I have to say on it.

*depends on how is the damage calculated... is 5.5 6 or 5 and so on. I mean, does this game use normal mathematical rules for pyöristäminen. (don't remember the english word for it, so there you have the finnish one EDIT:is it approximation?)

[Darth Fool]

I am not advocating having a surrounded functionality, I don't think it is necessary, since 6 level 1s will usually kill a level 3 or four without too much pain. However, If such a feature were added, I would define it in the following way: "a unit is considered surrounded when it would be unable to move more than 1 hex." Thus, most units would be surrounded if you got in the classic backstab orientation, but it also could be surrounded if it was surrounded by really bad terrain. Skirmishers would be very hard to surround. Hmm...The bad terrain doesn't sit well with me (fighting with your back to the wall should be a good strategy) so perhaps a modification: "a unit is considered surrounded when it would be unable to move more than 1 hex because of ZOCs from adjacent enemies."

In any case, I think a unit that is surrounded in the current game is already in such bad shape that making it even weaker is a bad idea gameplay-wise.

[deserter]

In any case, I think a unit that is surrounded in the current game is already in such bad shape that making it even weaker is a bad idea gameplay-wise.

Yeah, I know... But those people do want this, so I gave them a new, fresh opinion. (i dont't know if this is true though)

Surrounded unit isn't weaker but attackers are stronger on my proposal. (you maight have meant that situation is weaker)

But if this was ever implemented, i don't think that classic backstab situation should be enough to surround an unit, because it would make these situations too common. And besides it would make the backstabbers less useful.

I do think that this feature is not "a must". It might make the gameplay worse or better, i can't really make up my mind.

[shevegen]

"As it is, if a unit is really surrounded it is dead in most cases anyway. There are only a few units which can survive 5 or 6 attacks and then it won't be able to flee, unless the player as enough units nearby to free the surrounded unit."

Actually, not if you are unlucky, and this is something VERY bad if luck becomes such a big factor. Strategy should be more important. My basic perception was that it should be easier to HIT a unit that is surrounded by x number of enemies. Consider backstab for example, it deals nice damage if another unit is on opposing end. The damage will be void though if you are very unlucky and dont hit. And in certain situations it CAN become very important to kill a unit (like to rescue a very injured hero that needs to run away, but the only viable exit is blocked by an enemy unit. In these cases there may not be viable alternatives, for example if level 2 trolls hunt you, and your units are all pretty injured. It can be that those trolls quickly rush through the units you sent to delay them while you try to escape.)

Another example, a level 3 elvish ranger in the forest is rather hard to kill for level 1 units.
And the problem is that the level 1 units will probably suffer a lot if they all attack the ranger - the ranger hits back easily and deals nice damage.


And yet another example, level 2 or so knights, that can kill units with few blows.
So the ability to kill a unit easily is already there, and there already is a big luck factor involved. (I personally like elfish sharpshooters, they always seem to deal nice damage. I like offense)

I dont know how this is in multiplayer, but I read that too much luck can be less fun

By the way - I am fine either way, but I obviously am in the "surrounding one target" camp, at those that say that only the ability to defend/dodge should be lowered if a unit is surrounded (my suggestion is that if 3 or more attackers hit on the same unit. This way also there will be more "defense lines" and less units going out of those defense lines, since they would suffer a penalty if they get swarmed / surrounded).