Request for fixing: Unfair punishment of units fighting bett

[Cuyo Quiz]

It is true that it is pretty balanced as it currently stands. However, the problem is, in campaigns you usually have a kills/losses ratio of 5:1 - you don't want to trade a level 2 unit for 8 level 0s, you want to trade it for 40 level 0s, or 15 level 1s, or 5 level 2s...

Of course if you leave it open for retaliations, that ain't going to happen. If you maneuver, withdraw, coordinate attacks, you can do that, but it isn't happening if you leave it open for retaliations. After all, how much lvl1's are enough to kill a lvl2?.

What you don't seem to realise is that swarm attacks are not a FEATURE, they are a STRATEGY. They are a STRATEGY that comes forth from the COMBAT RULES. If you want to change this one STRATEGY to be ineffective, then you must change the GAME RULES in order to do so.

I support this argumentation, minus the rant.

Now on to make a "realistic explanation":

Our Elvish Champion stands in the battlefield and strikes down a Corpse. He however, has many other foes in close proximity, so one quickly takes its place. Our EC is very proefficient and starts hacking Corpses down left and right, high and low, but with so many enemies that close, his fronts becomes always quickly fileld with more undead puppets, as each one of them push the other forward. Our EC ends up, if not dead, greatly weakened and tired of his effort in the battlefield, in both cases knowing all too well that he has been outmatched by the insecure chance of winning the confrontation as he gets closer to the eternal slumber, and that he fought as a real champion of life all the time.

On another part, a Mage stands with a charred foe at his feet, another one quickly taking the place, they start gnawing at him while he defends with terror, his attacks only enough to wipe them off him. He IS pinned down by the puppets, and rightfully so, but as he is already sorrounded, no more enemies pit against him by lack of space, being them also bothered by the pressure of a mob pushing them forward. He now is terrified knowing he has found his last moments of life. With the feeling he didn't do much and that it would have been better to left this job to someone more effective than him in a battlefront, he prepares what will be his last words, and damn right some of them are going to be magical.

With this, i present two things: number one, that Wesnoth indeed accurately reflects effectiveness in battlefield (EC got many down with him, Mage just two if he gets lucky, and please account anyone can have bad rolls in a conflict), even though the Mage lived to experience a little more fear, and number two, how the best can die and the others survive, as it often happens.

Honor your Champion and give him your respect, and grief your Mage and his sad experiences. If you want to go with better utilities, maybe you shouldn't risk what you want to preserve next time time you confront an unsecure situation, for it is a crude, harsh world out there.

PS: Damn, isn't this a large post for me, taking into account my record.

[Galsiah]

...swarm attacks are not a FEATURE, they are a STRATEGY

I'm against the feature that makes "one hex swarming" possible. I'm not against swarming. My motivation for wanting this is not to eliminate the strategy, but to eliminate the incoherent game mechanic which allows it.

One attack per turn per hex is completely arbitrary by any stretch of the imagination.

The game rules as they stand produce this situation:
One attack can be made from each hex per turn unless the attacking unit dies in that hex, in which case one more is allowed until an attacking unit survives.

The proposed change gives this situation:
One attack can be made from each hex per turn.

One attack per turn is not arbitrary - it is the only number that simplifies the situation. Substitute 3 into my proposal, and it becomes:
One attack can be made from each hex per turn unless the attacking unit dies in that hex, in which case one more is allowed until an attacking unit survives or three attacks have been made from that hex.

What is the "realistic" or "common sense" argument behind it?

When units survive, battles proceed with at most one attack over each hex border. If attacking units don't survive, any number of attacks could be made over a hex border in the same time.

It doesn't make sense that time should be passing perhaps five times as fast over one hex border than over another indentical one. The attacks possible over a hex border in a turn should not depend on the death or survival of the units involved.

Mainly the result is the problem - that a very strong melee unit is necessarily more vulnerable to melee attacks in this situation than a unit with no melee attack. In a game played with abstract counters, this wouldn't matter. In a game played with Warriors and Mages... it is nonsense unless it can be explained in those terms.

A good explanation would have to account for the fact that two identical Elven Champions can be standing in the same situation, facing the same units, and one can be attacked five times after defeating four opponents, whereas the other is only attacked once in the same time, having failed to defeat his opponent.

I think people need to get over trying to change the entire battle system for one scenario in one campaign that is supposed to be one-of-a-kind.

The "one scenario in one campaign" is just the clearest example of the problem - it is not the problem.
Saying that this "changes the entire battle system" is just plain silly. It changes one rule which is only occasionally needed. In one sense it is a simplification.



EDIT:
Cuyo Quiz: your explanation works for one case - that could happen. However, it doesn't explain the game logic.

Variation in the speed of attacks is quite possible, but in this case the variation depends on the result of the previous combat - the more opponents a defender kills, the more he can be attacked. It is this relationship that makes no sense. If the speed of combat over a border varied randomly, that would make reasonable sense. Having it depend on unit deaths makes no sense.

Why can the replacement for the dead unit organise another attack more quickly than a unit who is already in the hex and engaged in combat? This might happen occasionally, but it should not be causative, and it should not happen five times in the same turn.

[JW]

Yeah, sorry bout the rant part. I was going to put /rant at the end, but I thought I'd cause some trouble first. Anyway, I REALLY don't think you're looking hard enough for the answers.

Units die at the rate you kill them at - obviously. This is dependant on how many hits you deal - how effective your fighter is. A WC can only attack so quickly...but if he dies another WC will gladly take his place and fight himself.

If your EC fails to kill the WC, the WC cannot attack quickly enough to kill the EC this turn AND he also blocks the OTHER WCs from attacking.

If your EC DOES defeat the WC then another steps in and makes his attacks as he has nothing else to do but pick his nose. And zombies don't care about boogers.

SLowl but surely all of the WCs will get their attacks in - one way or another. The matter is whether you can delay them to get backup or not by not allowing extra WCs to move into your threat area.

The game engine has no feature that says there are 3589326528650 Walking Corpses here: Hold off your attacks so that the hex he is standing on cannot be taken by 1 of the other 3589326528649 Walking Corpses!!

The game engine simply makes the unit fight as effectively as possible.

Also, it is silly to allow only 1 unit to fight from a hex per turn...you would rather have units be able to move into your opponents ZoC and defend first??? No, that is no good. It's not logical for me to say: "Oh, here I am next to you good chap, but pardon my intrusion as I cannot hack your brains out with my cleaver. You will have to bear my odor for 1 round."

No. It's simply ridiculous.

That's why I jumped all over the +1 to movement cost idea, although I see why that idea is easily shot down as well, as hexes may be many miles across - ANOTHER reason why it is silly to only have 1 attack per hex per turn...but I won't give a silly example for that.

I hope this sheds some light onto why it is the system can be explained logically as it is. You just don't seem to want to see it.

Also, there is no such thing as better logic. Either something is logical or it isn't. It has logcial side ramifications or it doesn't. Your proposal has more illogical ramifications than does the current system, therefore I believe it to be a worse system.

Also, Undead are weak enough as it is. Let's just remove them from MP why don't we? Might as well if WCs will be useless...








/rant

[Galsiah]

Ok, this is (I hope) the last time I'm going to argue on this until I've tried changing the code and tested things with the "one attack per hex" rule in place. I'm not totally sure it'll improve the game so further discussion seems pointless at this point without some hard data.
If I get it working, I'll try it and report back - perhaps I'll think it sucks then too.


Just to address your points:

If your EC DOES defeat the WC then another steps in and makes his attacks as he has nothing else to do but pick his nose. And zombies don't care about boogers.

But when does this happen? The next WC has to attack after the last has died. He has had to wait for the combat to finish before attacking.
Say there are two WCs (A and B) on separate hexes attacking an EC.
Their combat would last about the same time (on average).
Say A dies, being replaced by C, and B survives.
When C arrives to attack the EC, B's combat would have finished - he's also just engaged the EC, so you'd think he'd be able to re-engage as fast or faster than the newcomer.
However, B has to stand there and watch C fight EC.
Say C loses, and is replaced by D who wants to attack the EC.
Surely by now B is ready to attack?
But no, B stands and watches D fight and lose.
B stands and watches E, F and G meet the same fate, until H finally survives.

It doesn't make sense that B should stand there while six more attacks go on in the hex next to him. It doesn't make sense to say these six attacks happen at the same time as the first, since if so why does each one depend on the previous WC dying?

I could make some sense of two attacks coming from the same hex when the first dies - since you could argue that combat would be over sooner for the WC that died (I don't see that this necessarily follows, but it's arguable). Six attacks going on over one hex while one goes on in the neighbouring hex makes no sense to me.

Now you can argue that this is a necessary product of a sequential turn based game where one unit moves at a time. There are other situations in Wesnoth that don't strictly make sense time wise. For instance if one attacker kills an adversary, other attackers are then free to move through that adversary's ZoC - even though both the attack and the movement should really be simultaneous.
Perhaps this makes sense for one attack, but it starts to get less credible as chains form: i.e. unit A kills B, allowing C to move through and kill D, allowing E to move through...

This is in some ways as bad as what I'm objecting to - but removing this (i.e. maintaining ZoCs of defeated units until next turn) really would screw things up. How can I justify agreeing with this, but not with the situation where the defenders are winning the combat?

There are a few differences:
(1) In this case the side gaining the ability to attack further is the side winning the battles. It makes a fair degree of sense that a friendly unit might be able to pass through a hex where the battle is going his side's way. Also, it seems reasonable that an attack can be pressed home quickly once the attackers have made a breakthrough.
(2) The battles are not occurring over the same hex border. The attackers don't need to "share" the same hex if they're winning - they just need to pass through a hex with a battle going on to attack further.

Basically it is fair for the attacking side to control the ZoCs and hexes of defeated enemies, since they are winning the battle in those areas. There are also no couter-intuitive results to this - strong units are best in attack and defense.

When attackers are winning and defeating units it makes sense that they should gain momentum, move forward and attack more. When attackers are being beaten easily and killed repeatedly in an area it makes no sense that they are able to attack perhaps five times as strongly there than at any other point.

Also, it is silly to allow only 1 unit to fight from a hex per turn...you would rather have units be able to move into your opponents ZoC and defend first??? No, that is no good. It's not logical for me to say: "Oh, here I am next to you good chap, but pardon my intrusion as I cannot hack your brains out with my cleaver. You will have to bear my odor for 1 round."

Yes - think about it: when you move in to attack a defensive position you are more vulnerable than they are - particularly if you're advancing into an area where part of your army has just been destroyed. If they have ranged weapons, they'll be able to engage you as you advance if they wish. If they want to use melee, they might well be able to attack you as you advance (though this is less certain, to be fair - but it's the Wesnoth convention that an attacking unit can avoid the defender's ranged weapons).
The defending unit has already won a battle that turn - they're defensively prepared, and have achieved victory, so the best ground is available to them. The attacking unit is arriving late in the turn to attack a unit that's ready for them. There is no element of surprise, they've had less time to prepare than the defenders, and they're moving through territory their side has lost to attack entrenched defenders from exactly the same direction as the previous attack.

Do I think they deserve a strategic avantage for this?

No. It's simply ridiculous.

I couldn't have put it better myself .


Personally I think the one attack per hex solution is the more logical, and more in keeping with the timing of the game world. However, neither of us really knows whether it'll be more/less fun. Therefore I'm going to have a bash at coding it and see what I think. I'll get back with details, or in despair at my lack of coding skill.

Also, Undead are weak enough as it is. Let's just remove them from MP why don't we? Might as well if WCs will be useless...

It might require slight rebalancing, but that's not the end of the world. Either that or allow WCs the multiple attacks as an ability - but with an explanation (see my earlier post for a fairly far fetched one).

[Darth Fool]

Ok, here is a proposal that is a slight modification of EPs original. EP originally proposed that when a unit dies, it in effect leaves a corpse behind that adds 1MP cost to the hex for the rest of the turn. This would reduce the # of units that could attack from a hex, but not reduce it to 0. I propose that instead of making it cost 1MP, cause the first attack of any unit in that hex to be delayed by the # of corpses in the hex. Thus, continually attacking from the same hex, while possible, will increasingly favor the defending unit. In the WC vc EC case, after the first WC dies, the EC would essentially have first strike, thus likely killing the 2nd WC before it even hits. The third, fourth and fifth WC are increasingly worse off. The 6th WC to attack from the same hex is no worse off then the 5th, but the chance of success is so low as to be negligible.

Thoughts on this vs. EPs proposal.
-EPs method has the nice feature that becomes obvious what is going on because eventually no unit can move into the hex, there are too many corpses. It has the strange effect that you generally want to attack a unit with your units that are farther from the defender.

-My method needs some explanation, and probably a corpse/gravestone sprite to indicate what is going on. But then again, EPs method would probably need something similar. My method would not negatively effect berserkers as much as it would WCs and other weak units. This to me seems good. My method would be of most benefit to units with a large number of attacks on defense, but it would benefit any strong unit on defense against swarms of weak units.

Thoughts on having only 1 attack per hex: This is a bad idea for single player. In closed in situations, primarily in caves, it can be a necessity to be able to attack multiple times from the same hex. Again, this is not an MP issue, but an SP issue.

The real question in my mind is: is swarm-killing by low-level units really a problem?

[Sapient]

I don't think it's a problem, but if it was, I would like Darth Fool's fix the best. Attacking over the bodies of dead comrades is useful not only for breaking through a narrow passages, but also for damaging enemy leaders with weaker units (usually as a desperation measure, since you are sacrificing them). Thus it generally speeds up the game, rewards aggression as opposed to defense, and increases the possibility of kamikazee comebacks in MP... so you might say I have a vested interest in keeping it.

[Galsiah]

I like that solution Darth Fool. It can be explained in game mechanics terms quite simply.

Also it makes sense in the game world: the attacker doesn't have much time to mount a careful attack, since most of the time was taken up by the previous attacker. Therefore the next attacker needs to rush forward progressively faster and with less care, exposing himself to more attacks before he can respond. [I prefer this "time based" view rather than the "stumble over corpses" view. I'm not sure what the best way to display this would be.]

It's not too complicated (the player already deals with a similar situation with "first strike"), and it makes a fair amount of sense.

The real question in my mind is: is swarm-killing by low-level units really a problem?

It's not a problem, so long as it makes sense. If there is an in game explanation as to why a defender with no melee attack can protect himself better then the best melee units in the game in this situation, then that's fine. At the moment there is no such explanation, so it seems unfair, and is distracting.

In a game like Wesnoth where you are fighting a battle with units for which you have descriptions, tactics should usually make sense on an intuitive level. The more right decisions can be made through intuition, the more the player will feel part of the game world, rather than someone controlling an arbitrary computer simulation. Where the player does look into the stats, he should be able to explain the results in game world terms (though not always in real world terms - since WINR).

The intuitive decision when attacked by a swarm of weak melee units is to form a defensive line of strong melee units. Ideally this should be the best thing to do - even in the Valley of Death.

Darth Fool's solution would still need testing, of course, but it should be ok: it only makes any difference if both the first and second attacking units die. This is pretty rare outside WC mass attacks against stong melee units. This solution does weaken WCs though, so perhaps balance would still need to be looked at.

[JW]

Now you can argue that this is a necessary product of a sequential turn based game where one unit moves at a time. There are other situations in Wesnoth that don't strictly make sense time wise.

Precisely.

Let's say I have 2 Elvish Fighters stuck between 2 enemy Mages that are 4 hexes in opposite directions on hills lets say. Both mages are at 10 hp. If Wesnoth were NOT a TBS game then I would need to make a decision: send both Fighters after 1 Mage to virtually guarantee its demise, or split them up hoping to take them both out at the same time.

As it is, I will send one EF to attack one Mage, see the outcome and then move on accordingly. This happens in respect to EVERY SINGLE BATTLE IN WESNOTH. Therefore, it is something about the game that is unrealistic that is, by nature, a necessary part of the game. Everything that follows from this type of gameplay is also natural in terms of Wesnoth.

You may not like this as Wesnoth does not have the same nature as Earth, but this is a computer game that is not meant to replicate the circumstances of Earth. It does not even accurately represent a "realistic" fantasy world: hence the acronym WINR.

Wesnoth is a video game. A very fun, challenging, and engrossing video game.




Having said all that I do understand where your discomfort lies. If you consider that the EC will get killed more quickly in terms of turns, then yes, the scenario makes little logical sense as turns are representative of time. Yet, if you examine the number of battles it takes to kill the EC you will pleasantly surprised to find theat it takes far fewer battles for a Mage to die than an EC. Unfortunately battles and turns do not represent time in the same way: how else could a defender like an EC defend all the area around him (represented by 6 hexes) and not only throw more swings against all of them than he could against a single opponent on the offense (24 defensive swings compared to 4 offensive ones), but also deliver his full strength into each of his swings?

Surely you understand that the nature of a TBS game is not the same is a RTS game, as you have pointed this out another instance where TBS falters in terms of realism when thought of in terms of realistic time.

Wesnoth is not a RTS video game, it is a TBS game. WINRITOT - Wesnoth Is Not Realistic In Terms Of Time. If it were, than it would surely be a RTS game: a Real-Time Strategy game.

Unfortunately for your brain and it's immersion, this is something you will have to live with when it comes to Wesnoth. No matter what "fix" you propose, all the other "unrealistic" scenarios a TBS game allows will still be present. This is unavoidable unless a RTS version of Wesnoth is in development. Highly doubtful.

The real question in my mind is: is swarm-killing by low-level units really a problem?

I say no to this question. Let me for one last time explain why:

This is what a swarm attack is:

Units attack and "die" in a hex in order to allow more attackers to deliver damage on the same turn.

There are several major issues with this strategy that must be taken into account before you decide whether or not his strategy is a "problem."

1) A unit must "die" in the attack in order for it to continue
-something that cannot be guaranteed, no matter the probability
-it is a necessary sacrifice for the attacking player to make for this strategy to work

2) A unit must deliver a blow before "dying"
-something that cannot be guaranteed, no matter the probability
-this probability can be altered by the defending player by determining the type of terrain he leaves his units

3) More attackers must be within range to attack from the same hex
-something that the defending player can determine based on where he places his units.

4) All units combined must deliver enough damage in order to "kill" the defending unit.
-This is something that although cannot be entirely ruled out unless the defending unit is out of range of such damage, is something that he can predict using probability and unit placement.

BOTTOM LINE: The defending player determines where his units can get attacked from. The defending player positions his units in terms of terrain and hexes away from the enemy.

The only situations where a swarm attack can be considered unfair is in situations where the original setup is unfair be it through a SP scenario or through a lopsided MP game in terms of starting gold or nearby villages, although this is not an intrinsic problem with the strategy itself.

As for possible "solutions" to this "problem," I think that the delayed strike feature, although interesting, makes little "realistic" sense. let's say 4 units attack from the same hex - somehow the defender gets 0 attacks in on the first unit before it fights, 1 on the second, 2 on the third, and 3 on the fourth....if "realism" is the goal, this is not the solution.

Increased movement costs are the only "logical" solution to this "problem," as it actually prevents further units from occupying the same hex in the same turn. Since 2 units cannot occupy the same hex on the same turn in any other fashion (other than moving them back and forth), this seems to me to be the most "realistic" of all the "solutions." I would support this change, if any to the current system. I'll have to look at my original thought as to why this could be explained away too, as I'm currently in favor of actually implementing this now - although it would not only weaken WCs, but it would weaken any units with low movement somewhat. WCs would be hurt the most however, as this is their primary purpose.

So, to sum up, I don't believe the current system is a problem, but I would be in favor of making hexes harder to move through that contained a "dead" unit - including units that defended and "died" that turn, if the developers believe such a change would benefit gameplay. I think it might, but I'm going to reexamine the situation.

(side note: I will no longer put die in quotes anymore, but left them there in order to emphasize that Wesnoth is a video game, not real life, and therefore is unrealistic not only in terms of gameplay, but also in the descriptions of what is happening in actuality. [All that is happening is a program is running on a computer that you are interfacing with. Nothing is actually dying.])

[guest]

Hello, being back from having been away.

@DarthFool: I consider this issue to be visible both in SP and in MP. However, like JW, I do not consider this to constitute a problem. (See the justification further below.)

@Galsiah: Very imaginative argumentation. I especially liked your "one unit disappearing each turn" -feature as an illustrative example. Now, back to the point: I think we can safely say that this is not an acute problem, with regard to immersion, otherwise, but only / almost exclusively when dealing with Walking Corpses. Certainly, other units can be sacrificed in a battle, too, be they berserkers or not. However, in most circumstances, their amounts are not quite as ridiculous as with the walking corpses in HttT.

@Galsiah - would you accept this as a solution: Revising the walking corpses' description to accommodate for your idea of the "battle frenzy", which "can send dozens of them to their undoing"? No change in game mechanics would be required. (I believe I may have accepted that explanation intuitively anyhow, when first faced with it in Heir to the Throne. It didn't break my immersion, at least.)

[Galsiah]

First, I agree that Wesnoth is never going to be realistic where time is concerned. The only way to make it so would be to have both sides give all orders for all units before any unit moved, then calculate them all at once. This would totally change the game, be very complicated, and probably make it worse.

I guess my objection on this is mainly that a unit is being punished for doing well in a way that makes no sense. The other Wesnoth time anomalies don't punish units for doing well.
This is the basic point I'd like to see addressed somehow.

As for possible "solutions" to this "problem," I think that the delayed strike feature, although interesting, makes little "realistic" sense. let's say 4 units attack from the same hex - somehow the defender gets 0 attacks in on the first unit before it fights, 1 on the second, 2 on the third, and 3 on the fourth....if "realism" is the goal, this is not the solution.

I disagree - I can make sense of this without much trouble. Just say that the later units have less time to attack, and are attacking a prepared unit. It's at least as sensible as the current situation - and probably would give better gameplay I'd have thought.

...how else could a defender like an EC defend all the area around him (represented by 6 hexes) and not only throw more swings against all of them than he could against a single opponent on the offense (24 defensive swings compared to 4 offensive ones), but also deliver his full strength into each of his swings?

Difficult, but possible - if hexes are miles across: the time taken in an attack could be the time to track down and engage the defending unit. The actual battle occurs very quickly by comparison. Therefore an attacker can attack once after tracking down the defending unit. If he is attacked by six units, he can defend against each of them as they track him down.
The defending unit spends most time waiting to be found (or perhaps even evading further attacks). The attacking units each spend time tracking down the defender, finding and engaging him at some point during the turn. The timing of the actual battles is then not significant.

I can explain six attacks and defenses happening in one turn (from all sides), on this basis. It makes sense that the defending unit would be engaged much more frequently if the attackers were attacking from all sides. The same doesn't apply really apply for a series of attacks from one side - particularly if the defending unit doesn't want to be engaged: he could more easily avoid further encounters after defeating his opponent than after drawing.

Galsiah - would you accept this as a solution: Revising the walking corpses' description to accommodate for your idea of the "battle frenzy", which "can send dozens of them to their undoing"?

Perhaps - I did suggest it I guess .
I'm not sure this is the best approach though: WCs are the most common cause of this situation, but not the only one. Also it may feel like a description written as an apology for the game mechanics - it might draw attention to the issue, rather than solving it. Given that the problem is one of player perception and immersion, rather than game balance, the player's perception is the important thing.

If players who are currently put off by this would see the description and think: "Ok, that makes sense." then that's good. The danger is that such players might see it as an attempt by the developers to cover up a mistake - thus taking the player's thoughts even further away from the game world.
I'm not sure the explanation would feel natural enough to avoid the latter case.


Anyway, we can all agree that this isn't the most important issue either way. I'd still ideally like to see it addressed though - e.g. with Darth Fool's proposal.

I've had a brief delve into the code, and am fast reaching the conclusion that there are probably more important, and more interesting issues than this (and that I have little idea what's going on ).

[guest]

...how else could a defender like an EC defend all the area around him (represented by 6 hexes) and not only throw more swings against all of them than he could against a single opponent on the offense (24 defensive swings compared to 4 offensive ones), but also deliver his full strength into each of his swings?

Difficult, but possible - if hexes are miles across: the time taken in an attack could be the time to track down and engage the defending unit. The actual battle occurs very quickly by comparison. Therefore an attacker can attack once after tracking down the defending unit. If he is attacked by six units, he can defend against each of them as they track him down.
The defending unit spends most time waiting to be found (or perhaps even evading further attacks). The attacking units each spend time tracking down the defender, finding and engaging him at some point during the turn. The timing of the actual battles is then not significant.

I can explain six attacks and defenses happening in one turn (from all sides), on this basis. It makes sense that the defending unit would be engaged much more frequently if the attackers were attacking from all sides. The same doesn't apply really apply for a series of attacks from one side - particularly if the defending unit doesn't want to be engaged: he could more easily avoid further encounters after defeating his opponent than after drawing.

If hexes may be miles across, does this really make sense? If he can be tracked down by one corpse, why couldn't he be tracked down by the next? It's not like they all find him in the same spot, if we follow your logic...

Let's face it. You're really bothered by this, and want to explain it in your favor. I, then again, am not, and want to explain why the current situation is good.

Galsiah - would you accept this as a solution: Revising the walking corpses' description to accommodate for your idea of the "battle frenzy", which "can send dozens of them to their undoing"?

Perhaps - I did suggest it I guess .

Ok, I say we stick to this, since the game mechanic really doesn't need changing.

Then again, if this could feel like an apology (knowing the background), maybe their description is better left unchanged. I don't want the game's developers having to apologize for what they've created. IMO they really shouldn't, such a great game as they've made.

Given that the problem is one of player perception and immersion, rather than game balance, the player's perception is the important thing.

Well, we're still not in agreement about whether it's a very common player immersion problem. IMO, however, your proposed change would create game balance problems (quite drastic, even).

I must say that I am rather fond of the current game mechanic - I just recently "swarmed" an opponent's leader, a mage unit, with ranged attacks. Only two of my already-weakened units died, the third one landed the kill.

If this possibility were to be taken away, it would give the winning side the chance to attack more carelessly, to push their advantage, without worrying about their higher level units' safety. In a stalemate situation, stronger (more HP, better attacks) units would always tend to survive, and the side that was already losing would not be able to turn the battle with skillful usage of their opportunities. (In your terminology, spending enough time and energy to track down and eliminate the enemy's heavy hitter.)

I hope you are able to see my side of the story, and on the basis of the above ideas, are able to appreciate why changing the game mechanic could (IMO most probably would) be "A Bad Idea" (tm).

Anyway, we can all agree that this isn't the most important issue either way.

I've had a brief delve into the code, and am fast reaching the conclusion that there are probably more important, and more interesting issues than this (and that I have little idea what's going on ).

I'm glad you say so. I hope you can come to terms with the immersion issue.

Happy new year for you.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I support Darth Fool's version. IMO, it would be good even for situations that don't involve excessive numbers of corpses. It would reduce the "If my unit dies, you're going to get owned!" effect more than the original.

[shevegen]

I still think that strong units should not be punished by killing weak units, which leave empty spots, which can filled up by other weak units, while at the same time weak melee units survive simply because they cant kill the weak units as efficiently as a strong unit can. Oh and I address this here because my other thread was closed down (and referred to this old thread, which has already gone in directions which hardly address my original point). I guess Wesnoth really means to KEEP simple when it embraces the KISS philosophy.

[JW]

I still think that strong units should not be punished by killing weak units, which leave empty spots, which can filled up by other weak units, while at the same time weak melee units survive simply because they cant kill the weak units as efficiently as a strong unit can. Oh and I address this here because my other thread was closed down (and referred to this old thread, which has already gone in directions which hardly address my original point). I guess Wesnoth really means to KEEP simple when it embraces the KISS philosophy.

You're entitled to your own opinion, even if you ignore all the logic, reasoning, and explanations of others. Unless you bring something new to the discussion you're not going to be taken seriously.

[irrevenant]

This thread is remaining open so that anyone who has any new ideas to add can do so. We know that the problem exists and numerous possible solutions have already been proposed and argued down; so far the status quo is better than any of the alternatives.

If (and only if) you come up with a new solution, please post. But make sure you've read the whole thread to ensure you're not rehashing old territory first.