No retreat penalty?

[enigmoo]

And how do you define 'ranged units' ?

A ranged unit is a unit that has only a ranged attack.
Therefore they engage only in ranged attacks and could be set to flee with less penalty. Ranged mounted units could be set to flee with no penalty.

I feel that this would complicate the game.

Well, that's true but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Any addition to the game will by definition complicate it. The question is will it be more fun to play or less fun to play. Adding the idea that combat is not something one enters into lightly I believe enhances the wargame aspect of play and therefore makes it a desirable 'complication'.

It may make sense for some units, but for other it doesn't make sense.

That's true too, which is why this idea includes new traits such as 'easy-retreat' for stealthy units and 'no-retreat' for fanatical units. Also, mounted units can retreat from unmounted units with no penalty and ranged attacks are not effected.

Well sorry, i disagree we that need it

That's OK. It's something you'll have to experience to understand perhaps.

In sum, I think this might make conquering villages / attacking / turning the tide of the battle more difficult.

No doubt this would make attacking a riskier enterprise which is the point. To simulate a true combat experience in a wargame I don't think is a bad thing. I agree that this would also mean certain changes to how campaigns are structured and such and in the long run how units are designed and implemented. Also, not necessarily a bad thing.

So this idea is not one to be entered into lightly by the designers. It will definitely affect many aspects of the game but if it is completely integrated it will give the game a needed real-world feel. The idea that you can engage an enemy in melee combat and then turn your back on them without any penalty is just silly, imho.

I am assuming that the "punishment hit" would be taken when the withdrawal starts, before the withdrawing unit moves back.

Precisely. Although in other TBS games some units automatically pursue I don't think it is necessary.

(especially if one's willing, a priori, to accept your premises)

Well, wtr to ranged units purpose in the game, they have none that I can see other than providing a different type of melee attack.

Temuchin Khan's point about being unable to differentiate between different kinds of retreats is also rather valid, IMO.

Actually, this can be addressed by increasing the retreat penalty according to how many consectutive turns a unit retreats. The premise being that if a unit is retreating repeatedly then they are in fact being routed and become increasingly susceptible to pursuit. Of course, this would also add another dimension to the game that would need to be considered.

However, trying to justify having no retreat penalty by saying it would be unrealistic to not be able to differentiate btw one type of retreat and another is a bit disingenuous. To have units be able to disengage from armed mortal combat with zero penalty is an encroach on realism that far outweighs such objections. In other words, it is far more realitic to have a retreat penalty without such considerations than to have no retreat penalty at all.

Respectfully,
e

[turin]

And how do you define 'ranged units' ?

A ranged unit is a unit that has only a ranged attack.

Which would be... one. The Dark Adept.

I feel that this would complicate the game.

Well, that's true but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Any addition to the game will by definition complicate it.

But there are different degrees of complication. Adding new units, new specialties, etc, are one kind of complication, but changing the game rules are another.

Basically, this change would make Wesnoth not Wesnoth. It might make an interesting game (I doubt it), but it would not make Wesnoth.

In sum, I think this might make conquering villages / attacking / turning the tide of the battle more difficult.

No doubt this would make attacking a riskier enterprise which is the point. To simulate a true combat experience in a wargame I don't think is a bad thing. I agree that this would also mean certain changes to how campaigns are structured and such and in the long run how units are designed and implemented. Also, not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, it would create a different game.

It looks to me like you have an idea for a new game. That's fine. But we have a saying around here; Wesnoth is Wesnoth, not whatever your favorite game is and you want to turn it into.

So this idea is not one to be entered into lightly by the designers. It will definitely affect many aspects of the game but if it is completely integrated it will give the game a needed real-world feel. The idea that you can engage an enemy in melee combat and then turn your back on them without any penalty is just silly, imho.

1. No real-world feel is needed. WINR.
2. Have you ever been in a swordfight with someone? In general, if you start backing up slowly from them, and they choose not to pursue you, you can get away safely. It is only if you turn your back to them, and run away like a coward, that you will get stabbed in the back. So, all we need to do to have the game be semi-realistic and still not implement this is, say that whenever people retreat, they are making an orderly retreat, and they never have their back to their enemy. Really, this is completely possible.

So, in conclusion, WINR, and even if it was, you have no realism-based argument.

(especially if one's willing, a priori, to accept your premises)

Well, wtr to ranged units purpose in the game, they have none that I can see other than providing a different type of melee attack.

And you're point is....?

Temuchin Khan's point about being unable to differentiate between different kinds of retreats is also rather valid, IMO.

Actually, this can be addressed by increasing the retreat penalty according to how many consectutive turns a unit retreats. The premise being that if a unit is retreating repeatedly then they are in fact being routed and become increasingly susceptible to pursuit. Of course, this would also add another dimension to the game that would need to be considered.

I'm starting to see a clear case of Complexity for the Sake of Complexity (tm).

To have units be able to disengage from armed mortal combat with zero penalty is an encroach on realism that far outweighs such objections.

No it isn't. I suspect you only believe this because you have found retreat-penalties in all other TBSs you have played.

So, in conclusion, I would go as far as to say that the current system is more realistic than the one you propose. (For melee vs. melee, and ranged vs. ranged, anyway. Ranged vs. melee is a much more complex issue...)

[enigmoo]

Basically, this change would make Wesnoth not Wesnoth. It might make an interesting game (I doubt it), but it would not make Wesnoth.

Fine, then let it be Wesnoth 2

What are fears but voices airy?
Whispering harm where harm is not.
And deluding the unwary
Till the fatal bolt is shot! — Wordsworth

[turin]

Just wondering, are you going to bother to respond to the rest of my objections (including the ones about how this change will actually make Wesnoth less realistic)?

[Thrawn]

It wouldn't be wesnoth2, it would be RipoffToo--you didn't invent wesnoth, can't take the name. Really un-wesnothian idea, as Turin pointed out. And remember, WIN_, KISS, and all those other acronyms!

[enigmoo]

So, all we need to do to have the game be semi-realistic and still not implement this is, say that whenever people retreat, they are making an orderly retreat, and they never have their back to their enemy. Really, this is completely possible.

Well, backing up should mean you get a movement penalty, no?
see..

Or there can be an option to retreat with caution which would lower your moves but save you the hit.

And let me adjust the definition for 'ranged units'. A unit whose primary attack is ranged. How does that sound?

But there are different degrees of complication. Adding new units, new specialties, etc, are one kind of complication, but changing the game rules are another.

So what? You make it sound like I have trespassed on holy ground. I didn't notice any rule banning rule discussion.

I'm starting to see a clear case of Complexity for the Sake of Complexity (tm).

Well, in that case all the rules are subject to this dismissal. Maybe all the rules should be dismissed to make the game real simple?

So, in conclusion, I would go as far as to say that the current system is more realistic than the one you propose. (For melee vs. melee, and ranged vs. ranged, anyway. Ranged vs. melee is a much more complex issue...)

Ok, fair enough. I just hope if our countries ever go to war you be the general.

[turin]

So, all we need to do to have the game be semi-realistic and still not implement this is, say that whenever people retreat, they are making an orderly retreat, and they never have their back to their enemy. Really, this is completely possible.

Well, backing up should mean you get a movement penalty, no?

Not necessarily. Obviously, units in Wesnoth aren't moving at their top speed anyway (since they can only move 5 hexes in 4 hours). And the unit would only have to be going slow for the first hex of retreating. Really, the loss in speed would be negligible. We could factor it in if we wanted to, but it would be a waste.

And let me adjust the definition for 'ranged units'. A unit whose primary attack is ranged. How does that sound?

Impossible to determine.

But there are different degrees of complication. Adding new units, new specialties, etc, are one kind of complication, but changing the game rules are another.

So what? You make it sound like I have trespassed on holy ground. I didn't notice any rule banning rule discussion.

There aren't. However, since we like the game rules the way they are, you need to have a very convincing argument for us to change our mind. IMHO, you're argument is not in the least convincing.

I'm starting to see a clear case of Complexity for the Sake of Complexity (tm).

Well, in that case all the rules are subject to this dismissal. Maybe all the should be dismissed to make the game real simple?

There is a difference between complexity, and complexity for the sake of complexity. Some game rules might be good additions (although I can't think of any right now). But so far, your only real reason for addng this is that you believe it would make the game more like a wargame. That is in no ways desirable, so the change would indeed be CftsoC.

So, in conclusion, I would go as far as to say that the current system is more realistic than the one you propose. (For melee vs. melee, and ranged vs. ranged, anyway. Ranged vs. melee is a much more complex issue...)

Ok, fair enough. I just hope if our countries ever go to war you be the general.

Since nobody today fights with hand-to-hand weapons, strategy today is a lot different than it was is in the WorldofWesnoth.


Also, since the Wesnoth combat system is markedly unrealistic in almost every way, why should we strive to make it more realistic in this particular way, leaving much more glaring errors?

[enigmoo]

Turin wrote:

Not necessarily. Obviously, units in Wesnoth aren't moving at their top speed anyway (since they can only move 5 hexes in 4 hours).

So what you are saying is that units are effectively always moving backwards in a cautious retreat? Or moving forward on their hands and knees?

Turin wrote:

And the unit would only have to be going slow for the first hex of retreating. Really, the loss in speed would be negligible. We could factor it in if we wanted to, but it would be a waste.

If for the sake of argument units are not constantly being cautious or moving on their hands and knees, then I think a cautious retreat for one hex would prolly reduce max movement in that turn by half. Not a waste to reflect this reality, imho.

Turin wrote:

Impossible to determine.

For purposes of discusion a 'ranged unit' is a unit whose primary attack is with a ranged weapon.

Turin wrote:

There aren't. However, since we like the game rules the way they are, you need to have a very convincing argument for us to change our mind. IMHO, you're argument is not in the least convincing.

Fair enough but are you sure you are being objective and not simply being Argumentative for the Sake of Obstinancy (tm)?

Turin wrote: Pardon me, but I was under the impression the game was already a wargame. I'm just trying to make it a better one.

Turin wrote: Yes but a retreat is a retreat and whether your fighting with knives or with tanks the retreating party is exposing their backside.

Turin wrote:

By all means, if you'd like to offer something constructive to the discusison I'm all ears. Otherwise you risk sounding AftSoO(tm)

[guest]

And let me adjust the definition for 'ranged units'. A unit whose primary attack is ranged. How does that sound?

Impossible to determine.

Well, now you're nit-picking.

I think I like the idea (movement penalty, penalty hit), in theory.

In practice - I wouldn't want Wesnoth to implement it. I don't conceive Wesnoth as a "war-game", rather a fantasy adventure. More complexity, á la war-game-simulation, is not needed, IMO.

[turin]

Not necessarily. Obviously, units in Wesnoth aren't moving at their top speed anyway (since they can only move 5 hexes in 4 hours).

So what you are saying is that units are effectively always moving backwards in a cautious retreat? Or moving forward on their hands and knees?

Moving on your hands and knees would be about the stupidest way of moving forward cautiously I can imagine.

What I am saying is that the movement system is extremely abstract.

And the unit would only have to be going slow for the first hex of retreating. Really, the loss in speed would be negligible. We could factor it in if we wanted to, but it would be a waste.

If for the sake of argument units are not constantly being cautious or moving on their hands and knees, then I think a cautious retreat for one hex would prolly reduce max movement in that turn by half. Not a waste to reflect this reality, imho.

No, it would be extremely unrealistic. As I said, you only have to retreat cautiously for the first hex, and that will only take at most twice the time it normally takes to move through the hex. The largest penalty I would think logical would be -1 MP.

Impossible to determine.

For purposes of discusion a 'ranged unit' is a unit whose primary attack is with a ranged weapon.

Define 'primary attack'. Take the Elvish Ranger, for example. What is his primary attack? Or that of the Lavinian Legionnaire?

There aren't. However, since we like the game rules the way they are, you need to have a very convincing argument for us to change our mind. IMHO, you're argument is not in the least convincing.

Fair enough but are you sure you are being objective and not simply being Argumentative for the Sake of Obstinancy (tm)?

I don't believe in objectivity.

There is a difference between complexity, and complexity for the sake of complexity. Some game rules might be good additions (although I can't think of any right now). But so far, your only real reason for addng this is that you believe it would make the game more like a wargame. That is in no ways desirable, so the change would indeed be CftsoC.

Pardon me, but I was under the impression the game was already a wargame. I'm just trying to make it a better one.

Nope, it's not a wargame.

Since nobody today fights with hand-to-hand weapons, strategy today is a lot different than it was is in the WorldofWesnoth.

Yes but a retreat is a retreat and whether your fighting with knives or with tanks the retreating party is exposing their backside.

Not true...

Also, since the Wesnoth combat system is markedly unrealistic in almost every way, why should we strive to make it more realistic in this particular way, leaving much more glaring errors?

By all means, if you'd like to offer something constructive to the discusison I'm all ears. Otherwise you risk sounding AftSoO(tm)

My point was that the Wesnoth combat system is markedly unrealistic in almost every way. That is how Wesnoth is. WINR. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to make the Wesnoth battle system realistic, since to do so would be to fundamentally change the nature of the game.

PS: to quote someone and have it say "said", do

.

[enigmoo]

.What I am saying is that the movement system is extremely abstract.

Well if we assume units at war are never moving as fast as they can then yes that would have to be a very 'abstract' system indeed.

Define 'primary attack'. Take the Elvish Ranger, for example. What is his primary attack? Or that of the Lavinian Legionnaire?

Hey, I never said there couldn't be mixed units as well. The purpose of defining a 'ranged unit' was to highlight the advantages of introducing a retreat penalty to the game. A unit whose primary attack is ranged will simply be more likely to engage in ranged attacks thus giving them a choice of avoiding the penalty.

For example, with the penalty system, Elvish Rangers would have the option of fighting from a distance in order to avoid the penalty. Thus calling their attack 'ranged' actually makes some sense.

I don't believe in objectivity.

Why not?

Nope, it's not a wargame.

Are you sure?

From Websters: Wargame - the testing of a plan or hypothetical situation, as in devising military strategy, using a computer, simulated models, etc.

Does Wesnoth meet these conditions? It has warfare. It has strategy. It has simulated models. It has computers to test these models. It has many rules, characters and background that involves warfare. I could go on but I think it's safe to say it's a wargame. Maybe not as sophisticated a wargame as can be imagined but a wargame nonetheless.

As far as whether a retreat penalty will make the game too complicated that is a subjective opinion based on each persons threshold for complexity. Allow me simply to state that my threshold can handle such a feature.

My point was that the Wesnoth combat system is markedly unrealistic in almost every way. That is how Wesnoth is. WINR. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to make the Wesnoth battle system realistic, since to do so would be to fundamentally change the nature of the game.

Well, that is like saying Wesnoth can never be improved. It is perfect and to suggest any kind of improvement is near sacriligeous. In other words, while I have made many reasoned arguements for this feature, your base arguement against it is that it would change the game and change is bad. So be it. You don't like change. Hopefully however, the developers are more farsighted and will try to keep improving the game despite the risk of changing it.

Look at it this way, if they do ruin it for you, there's always checkers.

PS: to quote someone and have it say "said", do

huh?

[Dave]

Retreating units do get a penalty. They get the penalty of having their enemy have the last attack on the enemy's turn, when the enemy could choose conditions of the fight, especially which weapon to use.

Also, if they cannot get away fast enough, and don't have anyone to screen them off, they may pay the additional penalty of having their enemy able to follow them and once again attack, having the advantage of choosing conditions of engagement again.

If we are talking about 'realism', well, this would be pretty low down on the list of things that aren't realistic.

David

[turin]

Well if we assume units at war are never moving as fast as they can then yes that would have to be a very 'abstract' system indeed.

And it is. That's not a bad thing.

I don't believe in objectivity.

Why not?

It's complex...

Are you sure?

Yes.

Wargame implies that the game attempts to simulate military strategy. Wesnoth doesn't. Good strategy in Wesnoth does not correlate to good real-life strategy, and vice-versa. Also, just because it has computers, warfare, and strategy doesn't mean that it is a method of testing strategy using computers and simulated models. You are claiming that just because it contains all the ingredients, it is one. That is obviously false. If you have eggs, flour, sugar, milk, butter, etc, laid out on a table, does that mean you have a cake? Does it even mean you are trying to make a cake? You could be trying to make bread.

As far as whether a retreat penalty will make the game too complicated that is a subjective opinion based on each persons threshold for complexity. Allow me simply to state that my threshold can handle such a feature.

It has nothing to do with my threshold for complexity. I am sure I could easily understand and play the game if it had the retreat penalty. My point is that it would add nothing to the game.

Again: Your only argument so far has been that 1. other TBSs have retreat penalties, so they must be realistic and that 2. the only aim of a good game should be to emulate real life as much as possible, so if it adds to the realism, it should be added. Both of those are, frankly, idiotic assumptions. My counterargument is simple. First of all, your proposal is not realistic. The current system is the most realistic, IMHO. And, even if it wasn't, we are trying to make a good game, not a realistic one. You need to demonstrate not that your system is realistic, but that it will make for good gameplay. You haven't done that at all. You seem to be assuming that any change that makes it realistic will lead to good gameplay, which is false. (If that was true, damage would be dealt in random amounts, not a set amount, there would always be a slight instant-kill chance, units would never level up, and as units took damage they would get weaker.)

Well, that is like saying Wesnoth can never be improved. It is perfect and to suggest any kind of improvement is near sacriligeous. In other words, while I have made many reasoned arguements for this feature, your base arguement against it is that it would change the game and change is bad.

Actually, my point is that it makes no sense to argue from the realism perspective, because WINR. If you want to make a realistic game, fine, but Wesnoth isn't it. I am fine with the Wesnoth rules changing, but only if they move to make it a more fun game, not a more realistic game.

Hopefully however, the developers are more farsighted and will try to keep improving the game despite the risk of changing it.

I am the developers.

(Well one of the minor ones. But the major devs tend to share my opinions on stuff like this.)

[enigmoo]

Retreating units do get a penalty. They get the penalty of having their enemy have the last attack on the enemy's turn, when the enemy could choose conditions of the fight, especially which weapon to use.

Erm. If you say so... But how does that allow someone to walk away from said engagement without suffering the consequences of turning their back on their enemy?

Also, if they cannot get away fast enough, and don't have anyone to screen them off, they may pay the additional penalty of having their enemy able to follow them and once again attack, having the advantage of choosing conditions of engagement again.

Once again that is after the engagement has ended and conditional on the enemies choice to follow. Weak.

If we are talking about 'realism', well, this would be pretty low down on the list of things that aren't realistic.

Fair enough. I realize there are priorities and encourage you stick to them. Care to share what is on the top of the list? Or is making Wesnoth more realistic just a silly idea?

e

"Fools are meant to be broken"

[turin]

Or is making Wesnoth more realistic just a silly idea?

Yep.

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the WINRs I threw into my posts. They mean "Wesnoth is not realistic". Wesnoth does not try to be realistic. Wesnoth doesn't care about being realistic. It cares about being a good, fun game to play. So, even though there are a whole bunch of flaws, realism-wise, in Wesnoth (we even had fun one day pointing out as many as we could), we don't care, since they don't detract from how fun Wesnoth is.