Ulfs

[The1exile]

You misplaced your "saves" folder?

Yeah. I posted about it elsewhere but even a system search doesn't turn it up (the ones in early versions are still present, though). I figure it'll probably come back in 1.8. Since the game still works fine, I'm less concerned about it.

[Turuk]

Yeah. I posted about it elsewhere but even a system search doesn't turn it up (the ones in early versions are still present, though). I figure it'll probably come back in 1.8. Since the game still works fine, I'm less concerned about it.

Given that your save file names match what you see in game, why don't you search for one of them? More to the point, there's now a central server where you could pull down your replays...

This is just a discussion amongst hopefully friendly players about strategy, in a forum devoted to such, over a question by players who admit they don't have all the answers, or even many of the answers

His point being that if the discussion was to actually serve any purpose, you might want to try listening to/experimenting with the strategies provided by others in response to your questions instead of dismissing it out of hand on what you suspect might happen.

[The1exile]

Given that your save file names match what you see in game, why don't you search for one of them? More to the point, there's now a central server where you could pull down your replays...

While I'd heard there was a central server, I'm not sure how to use it. I had a look on the wiki for replay stuff, but that doesn't mention it and the replays on the wiki are from older versions of wesnoth.

His point being that if the discussion was to actually serve any purpose, you might want to try listening to/experimenting with the strategies provided by others in response to your questions instead of dismissing it out of hand on what you suspect might happen.

I don't intend to dismiss it out of hand, and I am experimenting with the strategies. I don't play wesnoth all the time, though, so when I do I'm unlikely to get more than a few games in, which may not even be with knalgans (since I play random factions) - is it wrong to wonder if there are other solutions from other players with alternate strategies that don't involve ignoring it, or to question the feasibility of those presented before I can test it in depth?

Thanks to everyone who has given me advice so far, btw.

[Pentarctagon]

go to wesnoth.org/replays/1.x for the replays.

[Noy]

Okay, I'm tiring of this conversation. From what I can tell now, you and Pentarctagon really don't want to hear others answers, and instead revel in the fact that you think you're right and everybody else is wrong. People have given you thoughtful responses, even IB has chimed in, and you just keep harping on the same points regardless of them.

If you tire of the conversation, please feel free not to take part in it. This is just a discussion amongst hopefully friendly players about strategy, in a forum devoted to such, over a question by players who admit they don't have all the answers, or even many of the answers. I don't think everyone else is wrong, I'm just trying to point out potential flaws in the arguments presented.

I doubt anybody here who was discussing this with you really think you're interested in "friendly" debate given your last several responses. They have started to strain credibility; If ALL Archers were Strong Resilient with full health and all ulfs were Quick intelligent with low health on open terrain, then yeah I guess elvish archers would win more times than not. Is that realistic? Absolutely not.

When we point out the pretty glaring flaws in your argument and offer advice based on literally thousands of games of experience, you just wave them away with equally simplistic arguments. Your response to IB was particularly telling. I think most players would lick at the opportunity to kill an archer in a village with an ulf (75% CTK without a pre-attack by a fighter). Instead you just wave away his point continue to argue your main point of contention.

I am also playing 1vs1 games pretty regularly to try and improve my skill as a player, and am also implementing the strategies suggested to me when playing knalgans and the situation seems to call for an ulf.

I doubt many people learn by trying to refute all the suggestions that people are trying to give. If you want to learn you'd listen to people like Velensk and IB who have probably played thousands of games between them and have assisted in the game development for the last two years.

I'm not posting in other peoples topics revelling in my own awesomeness, insinuating that other people are being deliberately annoying, nor even trying to ask for the units to be rebalanced (which seems to be what really gets your goat). I just wanted to know if there was a better strategy for displacing archers from forest tiles with knalgans given that they have no units with magical, marksman or poison, no healing to allow for extended confrontations, and no non-physical damage types.

... I gave you a clear answer before and you ignored it; as I said, don't try it there are a number of different attack avenues on that map. I don't know why you're so hung up on two forest hexes when there are ten or so others you can attack with a much greater chance at CTK. Its also a question of tactics; its rare that people send Ulfs in without having damaged the opposing unit. Most players will use a unit to do some pre-damage to increase the ulf's CTK and reduce the damage it will suffer in retaliation. One hit from a fighter gives an Ulf a 73% CTK vs a archer in the forest from ground. Most people would take that odds in a heartbeat.

Now you two come in, who quite frankly I've never seen play before without any proof whatsoever. All you've offered a theoretical situation where you claim the unit is unbalanced, which does not include any proof at all. Its not an actual game situation, and your responses frankly don't even correspond to that. You just keep adding additional claims to show why the situation is unbalanced (With no game replays to corroborate your statements,) which in reality further strains the credibility of your overall claim. Instead its apparent that you don't actually have an argument, just that you want to prove that you're right and everybody else is wrong.

I have no ability to access replays with my current stable install, having misplaced the appropriate folder, or I would try and post them.

There is a replay archive online, which you can access as well.

[Turuk]

or to question the feasibility of those presented before I can test it in depth?

If someone suggests a strategy for you to try, and you have not done so, on what grounds are you questioning its feasibility if you have no idea how effective it is?

While I'd heard there was a central server, I'm not sure how to use it. I had a look on the wiki for replay stuff, but that doesn't mention it and the replays on the wiki are from older versions of wesnoth.

Every time you log in to the server, the following is shown. Note that line right above the bottom one.

[The1exile]

If someone suggests a strategy for you to try, and you have not done so, on what grounds are you questioning its feasibility if you have no idea how effective it is?

For the same reason, though obviously less exaggerated, as if someone said "hey I got a great idea of how to play rebels against drakes, all I had to do was recruit mages and woses and they made short work of them".

Every time you log in to the server, the following is shown. Note that line right above the bottom one.

Picture 2.png

Colour me daft, then I'll have a look at it later on. Thanks.

[Pentarctagon]

i do not think that i am right and everyone else is wrong, i do not think that i am some perfect player who knows the correct and incorrect uses of all units (heck, i've only been playing wesnoth for a little less than a year). i do not think a unit is unbalanced, since any unit that i would be able to tell was unbalanced would not be included in mainline in the first place. i posted what i thought were bad ideas for using/dealing with an ulfserker, but if i'm wrong and an idea does work well, then i will use it the next time that situation comes up in an mp match. im sorry if it came across otherwise.

[Yoyobuae]

WOW, that replay server is awesome!!! I thought that the replays I forgot to save were gone for good . Very nice idea.

Now, back on topic. Something I find enlightening is to "invert" how damage is calculated.

Normally one multiply the maximum potential damage times the defense %. But it can be done in reverse too. Divide the target's HP by (100% - defense%). For normal Elvish archer on a forest hex, for example:
29/(100% - 70%) = 29/30% = 29/0.3 = 96.67

So a that archer is more or less equivalent to a unit with 96-97 HP but 0% defense (not taking luck into account). That's a lot of HP xD. Worst if resilient/strong:
35/0.3 = 116.67

Errr, I think its better to just leave it alone.

Note: Try to run the numbers for a Guardsman being attacked by blade/pierce/impact on good terrain, and have a good laugh xD

***EDIT***
Forgot, its also necesary to include resistances in the calculation. The result of the above, then gets divided by (100% - resistance%). Or you can apply resistance first then defense, yields the same result.

[jmegner]

Condensed:

You just keep adding additional claims to show why the situation is unbalanced.

I doubt anybody here who was discussing this with you really think you're interested in "friendly" debate given your last several responses.

Your response to IB was particularly telling. I think most players would lick at the opportunity to kill an archer in a village with an ulf (75% CTK without a pre-attack by a fighter). Instead you just wave away his point continue to argue your main point of contention.

... I gave you a clear answer before and you ignored it; as I said, don't try it there are a number of different attack avenues on that map.

I think you're right that The1exile dismissed arguments too easily, especially when he didn't do the math on the archer-in-a-village scenario. However, I never thought he was saying there was unbalance, just that there was a certain situation that was hard to solve. Also, even if archers were declared 'the ulf killer', that isn't necessarily unbalanced; ghosts do horribly against mages. I also thought that The1exile was interested in a friendly debate. I think there was some miscommunication here that got some people riled up which lead to more miscommunication. I don't want to stir up even more emotions; I hope we can try to understand the other person, and be forgiving.

Also, if I've done some misunderstanding of my own, feel free to correct me.

[TheGreatRings]

I don't suicide units, and I especially don't suicide expensive units. Hence, a certain reluctance to use Ulfs, as even when they kill a unit, they are often so hurt as to be easily killed by their next attacker. I would normally only attack with one if I had a chance to take out a leader and end the fight.

I do find they have some intimidation value, however. I'm always reluctant to move units within range of an Ulf (especially a leader, of course). But they cost too much for a unit the main utility of which, at least with my play style, is psychological.

[anakayub]

Yoyobuae:
You might be interested in the Wesnoth Fight Simulator. Useful in game.

[silent]

With the exception of the dark adept, and maybe the mage/orcish assassin, I feel attacking anything with an ulf in 60% terrain def + is a very RNG dependent move that should only be done if there is no other option.

Basically, the ulf should only be going after things in poor terrain, or if a HODOR unit or orcish assassin is on grassland (preferably during day). Or at least that is my opinion.

[Velensk]

I don't suicide units, and I especially don't suicide expensive units. Hence, a certain reluctance to use Ulfs, as even when they kill a unit, they are often so hurt as to be easily killed by their next attacker. I would normally only attack with one if I had a chance to take out a leader and end the fight.

I do find they have some intimidation value, however. I'm always reluctant to move units within range of an Ulf (especially a leader, of course). But they cost too much for a unit the main utility of which, at least with my play style, is psychological.

Ideally you would always use ulfs in a way that would allow you to cover them up after you use them, thus conserving your unit long enough to take them back for healing.

With the exception of the dark adept, and maybe the mage/orcish assassin, I feel attacking anything with an ulf in 60% terrain def + is a very RNG dependent move that should only be done if there is no other option.

Basically, the ulf should only be going after things in poor terrain, or if a HODOR unit or orcish assassin is on grassland (preferably during day). Or at least that is my opinion.

It is frequently worth the risk. You always know your odds of success. It's up to you to figure out if it is worth taking that risk, worth attempting to improve the odds first, or if it is not worth it.

They have far more use than just the pychological. They represent the ability to kill any ranged unit who exposes itself with one unit, in one turn. If you can protect them well enough, then you may be able to do this multiple times. They can also be used on offence as we've been discussing. You say that attacking a unit on high def terrain is risky, but if you can even the odds before hand you can still get 80% chance or more to win. What's more, if you lose, that means you inherantly get another chance as the space the ulfserker was in is now vacant. However it's all about determining if it is worth it. This is a skill that is very important to develop when playing knalgans.

[fareley]

http://ladder.subversiva.org/download-r ... 3+14:29:51

a ladder game i lost yesterday
i may have been unlucky and sometimes foolish but here's proof that ulf vs everything (especially archer) has the potential to win a game

and my opponent was 1600+ at ladder so i think he sort of knew what he did (i didn't )