Like a lion

[Beholder]

Disclaimer - Everything I will say is my opinion and shouldn't be take as a fact.

You know how a lion kills his prey? At first, seeing the beast jump on the game I supposed sharp claws and pointy teeth would rip the prey apart.

Thanks to the Discovery Channel, today I know they kill it slowly, by Asphyxia, like a match of Wesnoth after losing your first village.

Worst then losing your income, your enemy gets double. Its just downhill from there. He get more troops, you get less. One can safely just hold position and wait until his troops outnumber the enemy for a large deal and make the next move.

It's like losing one of your team members and playing handicapped. You know your chances are slim so why keep going, and here is the point I want to get.

A Wesnoth match takes a while, but the outcome is decided pretty early, the resolution however, the death of the enemy leader can take a while.

I conclude saying I wish there was a way to the first victory won't define the war or at least to make it quicker. If a player plays smart and safe and consolidated his first victory instead of rushing foward the game is set.

Ah, and while is possible for a comeback, it very unlikely, but I'd prefer to exit to lobby and find another game then fight a uphill match.

My 2 cents.

[Velensk]

......................
Right, nothing to do with stratagy but I disagree with the additude displayed.
Villages are retakeable, and if you can do it quickly then you even make some profit on the unit killed. I hate it when people leave in the middle without a word as it sounds like you'd do. I hate it when my enemies leave with indetermined results just because they precive it just got harder. Finaly, I dispise anyone who quits just because the going "goes uphill".
Yes stupid mistakes poorly planned offences or loesing a village and being unable to retake it can make the game turn rapidly against you but that's the chance you take or the price of your actions. An offence can make or break the game.

Now I understand if you don't want to play because it becomes impossible, but just loesing a village or getting wiped out on a flank does not nessisarily imply this. If you do though, please say somthing before you do. I prefer to play a game out to the end both for victory and defeat, not because I excpect a turn'around but I find it makes the game feel more complete.

I don't think 20-30 turns is to much time to put in for an opponent who puts in that much time (and few one on ones I've played take longer). If you are realy that impatient play a lighting match.

As a completely unrealaated note, a book I read beleived that sabertooth tigers killed in a very simular manor except once they had their pray pinned they would simpily dig in thier sabers into a vital area and rip it out to kill them.

[bert1]

Can we learn anything about Wesnoth from crocodiles?

[Sapient]

Maybe you should read all the threads started by Sauron. I'll quote you one of my responses.

http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 547#133547

I think your problem is not cumulating advantage, but cumulating advantage in the context of small encounters. On a small map with a small amount of starting gold, the luck of the first skirmish may very well sway the entire outcome. However, on a large map with large amounts of gold, your initial luck becomes less and less significant (and your strategic choices are more and more significant) in determining who will gain the upper hand. The problem? Takes more time to play.

Cumulating advantage makes sense. The army with the most gold, units, and villages should be most likely to win. So if you see that there is no hope for your army, you can either:

1) hold it out, enjoying little bits of revenge here and there, and learning how to play defensive

2) or if your partner agrees it is hopeless you may wish to offer resignation.

3) or if your allies are already defeated and you want to throw in the towel, maybe just go Kamikazee with your leader so at least the opponent has the satisfaction of completing the game and getting a couple of level-ups.

(Whatever you do, don't just leave without saying anything... I hate it when that happens.)

Having said this, I've played many matches where the outcome seemed predetermined and ended up with an unexpected outcome.

[thespaceinvader]

Indeed. If an opponent sees that you are in a poor position, they may become overconfident and make mistakes that you can capitalise on to regain the upper hand. Though a good player really shouldn't...

[Blarumyrran]

could be wrong here, but was not one of HG's ideas also that "retreating is pointless?"

if you defend all the villages with the price of all your army (instead of retreating and taking back when healing units are done/ reinforcements arrive/ good ToD comes), and still lose them, then yes, you are probably screwed for the rest of the game. but thats more due to the army than villages.

[Lorbi]

i have seen people winning that left naerly all their villages to the opponent.
what i remember best was a drake vs undead where the drake retreated at evening/night and left about 5 or 6 villages of his own ( on a map that has 16 or so in total ) unprotected to the UD but than at day wiped out nearly the whole undead force.

but what is yet true that sometimes in wesnoth you can lose a game and still survive long. but imho that is not happening that often that it would be too annoying and when the outcome is really clear to both sides its ok to surrender. ( surrender means NOT to quit without any word )

[Shadow]

With my limited experience one village doesn't have a that big impact perhaps ten turns later. On the other side why didn't you made some harassment with your faster moving units. If he is close to your frontier he might have left a flank open. Knalgans with their Gryphons have a field day here.

[Lorbi]

With my limited experience one village doesn't have a that big impact perhaps ten turns later.

depends on gpv
10 gold isn't a whole lvl1 unit
50 gold is at least 3

this said:
the higher gpv is the more important villages get which may limit tactical options if they are too important

[Weeksy]

Do you see any mainline maps with map settings of gpv over 2?

[irrevenant]

None of this has mentioned the human factor: there's always a chance that the guy at the other end of the line may slip up. Especially if he's getting cocky 'cos he's "got you on the ropes"...

[EDIT] Oh wait, Lorbi mentioned it. Sorta...

[Weeksy]

I think the slip-up is a great way of doing things, if you look at some of the HODOR replays, you'll see people getting cocky because they've got skeletons v. an army of poachers, but no one cares about 60% pierce resist when your leader is ZOC'd with multiple level 2's pounding away at it every turn.

[Sombra]

@ Beholder

watching your game against Duthlet, I think you like to rush your enemy and you dont like the carefull build up of forces and limited skirmishes for positions. So either you suceed or fail and no way back as you commited all your forces on the assault.

Personnaly I still believe that Wesntoh gives advantage to the player playing defensive .

Coming back to your original image of the Lion, I would like to add that the lion hides and attacks its prey by surprise as in a direct sprint he usally loses.

Alas, hiding is very hard to be done in Wesnoth ... Perhaps

[kav]

Some matches go like you say, the slow death of whoever did poorly in the first engagement. I remember a match where I tore up some elves in my first 2 encounters with skellies and adepts(6 turns or so?) I had 2/3 of the map(charge I think). He proceeded to recruit tons of trees and mages. A few good rolls here and there, and eventually around turn 20~25 I had no troops left and he had the whole map.

Alternatively, I've seen other matches where the troops lost in an assault or 2 taking villages successfully end up lvling 1 or 2 enemy troops, resulting in the quick demise of the opposing forces.
Though, I must agree that orcs love the strategy you described, mostly because they can stomach the losses it can require to take villages. My best faction is northerners so I know where you're coming from.

If you're bored of that strategy you really should give drakes an honest try. They REQUIRE massive assaults and prompt fleeing of the battlefield, leaving villages for the taking. Undead are kinda like that too, but to a much lesser extent.

Plenty of battles have the slow attrition outcome, especially if the opponent cannot adapt to the opposition's recruits, but that type of outcome is not one that is in the majority in my experience. Not even close.

[Beholder]

@ Beholder

watching your game against Duthlet, I think you like to rush your enemy and you dont like the carefull build up of forces and limited skirmishes for positions. So either you suceed or fail and no way back as you commited all your forces on the assault.

Personnaly I still believe that Wesntoh gives advantage to the player playing defensive .

Coming back to your original image of the Lion, I would like to add that the lion hides and attacks its prey by surprise as in a direct sprint he usally loses.

Alas, hiding is very hard to be done in Wesnoth ... Perhaps

I am truly ashanmed of that game, really. But I won`t regret playing it because it helped me improve my play.

After doing some shabby math, I found I can easily kill a Drake unit (any Drake unit) which is on a village with 2-3 Spears. I played TOO defensive.

I won`t left the game after I lose the economy advantage (and on big maps, a single village isnt that important)

But if I am losing the economy race I start to use bold tactics which makes the game end far quicker.

On a unrelated note, Id like to play a match versus you sometime (any race), you seen like a cool guy.

P.S. On playing defensive, I think you indeed have a advantage as long as you defend sucessfuly. The onus of the game weight heavily on the attacker. A attacker goes far from his home and attack a fortified enemy while on bad ground on enemy territory. But what happens when both players play defence?