Water Units Ruining the Game

Share and discuss strategies for playing the game, and get help and tips from other players.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: February 20th, 2005, 6:02 pm

Water Units Ruining the Game

Post by newbie »

Does anyone else think water units are really ruining the game?

In my opinion they are, for example, a water battle on blitz, usually consists of water units being used, say one water unit is on a terrian that gives him 70% defense, while another is also on a terrian that gives him 70% defense.

It always comes down to luck.

Also some factions don't have any water units:

Undead - None
Knaglan Alliance - None
Drakes - None (Skirmisher is okay, but I don't consider him a water unit)

This is a huge disadvantage for both of those factions.

Those factions don't need water units, please no more water units, I suggest decreasing the defense of water units so they can not effect a game for ground units (such as blocking a bridge on blitz).

I'll post replays, tell me if you guys have the same outlook as me. (:

Never mind it won't let me post replays from my computer, I think I have to give them to you via email or via AOL. ): .

Anyone care to tell me how to add a replay to this post? (: thanks

I have replays though, if you really want to see them I'll need to know how to send them to you properly.
addicted to this game would be an understatement <(@.@)> .
The Bishop
Posts: 14
Joined: February 19th, 2005, 12:19 am

Post by The Bishop »

In the map blitz, there are I believe 2 towns in the central lake. The solution for you is to use your resources to get the other towns. You may have noticed that WATER UNITS ONLY WORK IN WATER. They have 20-30% coverage everywhere else. The solution is to spend your money on more practical units, having maybe 1 naga at start to occupy the sea town on your side. While your opponent has to lay siege to it (in a battle of luck being in the town is a great asset), your other units, who will be infinitely more useful, can proceed to wipe the floor with the other troops of the player who is trying to win a sea battle.

If you are having trouble being marauded from the shore, find a unit with more attacks than the naga or use a mage (available to most of the races). And finally, if you want to bring up the issue of some races not having a mage, that deserves a different post.

You might point out that the knalgans have neither a mage nor a water unit. This is because most of their units have such ridiculously good defense coverage in one terrain or another.
aelius
Posts: 497
Joined: August 30th, 2004, 8:07 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by aelius »

Magical attacks are your friend. Mages are your friend. Attacks of type "pierce" are your friend.

If you're the undead, skeleton archers will make an awful mess of mermen and nagas. Dark Adepts are useful as well, but not as terrifying, as mermen and nagas resist cold damage.

If you're the Knaglan alliance, you're toast to begin with. Poachers are your best bet, followed by Thunderguards.

If you're Drakes, stay away from the water. Let him have those two villages and control the rest of the board.

The most important bit of tactics is to attack strong on weak. Never attack strong on strong. If he's got a bunch of mermen, ignore them or force them onto the land.

- b.
newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: February 20th, 2005, 6:02 pm

Post by newbie »

If you guys remember "correctly" blitz has two bridges, say you have one water unit on one of those bridges and another water unit on the farm that is in the swamp, you now have the defense for that whole side of the map. If the water unit that is on the bridge is damage, you should just rotate that water unit with the one on the farm.
If you control the defense on one side of the map u can easily focus on attacking another side of the map.

Archers attacking a water unit, 30 percent chance for me to hit??? i'd rather go with an adept that does 3 damage to the water unit.

"As knaglan alliance your screwed", thats a good way to look at things (: ..

Really when you play like this you know something needs to change.

Also someone tell me how to post replays please and I will gladly show you guys what I'm talking about.

~newbie
addicted to this game would be an understatement <(@.@)> .
Glowing Fish
Posts: 855
Joined: October 3rd, 2004, 4:52 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Glowing Fish »

newbie wrote:
Archers attacking a water unit, 30 percent chance for me to hit??? i'd rather go with an adept that does 3 damage to the water unit.


~newbie
Depending on the archer attackiing the water unit, it has much more than 30% to hit. An Elvish archer has four shots, This gives it (my math might be off here), an 86% chance of hitting at least once. Of course, it only has a 1% chance of hitting all four times.

It is true that Mermen can be very good at defending in water, but there are plenty of ways around that.
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Water Units Ruining the Game

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

newbie wrote:Does anyone else think water units are really ruining the game?
Yes.

Your points are very valid. They can also work like Gryphon Riders used to: In my most recent multiplayer game, my ally recruited a ton of Nagas, supposedly for "water control". However, there weren't any villages in the water, and the Nagas ended up being next to useless. My ally was trounced and his leader retreated to my keep, where I was able to stave off the assault. The game ended with a relatively even status between me and my opponents, and my internet connection vanishing.

On some maps, "you're screwed if you get Nagas"; on other maps, "you're screwed if your opponent gets Nagas". Between the two, Nagas are balanced on very, very few maps, and thus they should be exterminated.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
alainhenry
Posts: 8
Joined: February 2nd, 2005, 12:28 pm

Post by alainhenry »

newbie wrote: Also someone tell me how to post replays please and I will gladly show you guys what I'm talking about.

~newbie
I found that only a few extensions are allowed for attachments. So you need to zip your file, or manually add an extension .txt. Mays this is a solution to your problem ?
Alain
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

The thing about 'Blitz' is that it has quite alot of water on the map, so water units are fairly powerful. Sure, if a map has alot of water, having access to good water units will be a substantial advantage. But that goes for any type of terrain.

On most maps, water units will be moderately useful, or not useful at all. That's what makes them interesting strategically: a good player can understand when they will benefit him.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Rhuvaen
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1272
Joined: August 27th, 2004, 8:05 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Water Units Ruining the Game

Post by Rhuvaen »

newbie wrote:... for example, a water battle on blitz...
Well, is blitz really such a good map? I find that many villages and the player castles are easily reachable from the central body of water, and a group of mermen or nagas can swoop in for quick coastal kills or even a rush on your leader if you don't protect him. I certainly find that the 'just ignore the water units' tactic mentioned by someone doesn't work at all.

So the question is: is it a good idea to have a central body of water and waterway dividers on multiplayer maps? Newer maps use cavewall or shroud for this purpose, and I think that's a good idea. The map layout alone makes water units either powerful or nearly useless.

But I also think that the current water units are too polarised towards water. At least in shallow water I think there should be more land units that can challenge them - think of an aquatic type of saurian, for instance. Nagas might also become more powerful in their attacks or resistances, and have less of a defense advantage in water in return. The way the art developers interpret Nagas they are more of a serpent-people anyway, rather than the water spirits in some forms of mythology.
grochti
Posts: 58
Joined: July 10th, 2004, 9:15 pm

Post by grochti »

I don´t think "blitz" & "charge" are that great maps.

Imho Wesnoth factions should be balanced for maps with 60-70% grass land.
Blitz contains too many water tiles (as mentioned above).
Charge has way too much rough terrain. (Loyalists loose by default)

(I have to admit that creating a balanced& interesting mp-map is not an easy task. :wink: )
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

grochti wrote:Charge has way too much rough terrain. (Loyalists loose by default)
On the contrary, Charge is a beautiful map for use with Loyalists. There's enough grass paths for them to manuver reasonably, and the terrain provides nice defense.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: February 20th, 2005, 6:02 pm

Post by newbie »

Dave wrote:The thing about 'Blitz' is that it has quite alot of water on the map, so water units are fairly powerful. Sure, if a map has alot of water, having access to good water units will be a substantial advantage. But that goes for any type of terrain.

On most maps, water units will be moderately useful, or not useful at all. That's what makes them interesting strategically: a good player can understand when they will benefit him.

David
"A good player can understand wen they will benefit him", than what if the other player is knaglan Alliance can you say the same thing, the knaglan Alliace will know when it will benefit him to get anti-water units to stop the enemy, thats not going to happen because knaglan has no anti-water unit.

"That's what makes them interesting strategically", you mean water unit vs water unit? Where it basicly comes down to luck because there is no real strategy in it, its almost always a 30% chance to hit the opponents water unit, if not its a 40% chance. That is not strategy that is luck.
Or do you mean Knaglan land unit vs water unit. You should know how this will end.

When I say knaglan I'm giving an example other factions have the same problem.
rhuvaen wrote:newbie wrote:
... for example, a water battle on blitz...


Well, is blitz really such a good map? I find that many villages and the player castles are easily reachable from the central body of water, and a group of mermen or nagas can swoop in for quick coastal kills or even a rush on your leader if you don't protect him. I certainly find that the 'just ignore the water units' tactic mentioned by someone doesn't work at all.

So the question is: is it a good idea to have a central body of water and waterway dividers on multiplayer maps? Newer maps use cavewall or shroud for this purpose, and I think that's a good idea. The map layout alone makes water units either powerful or nearly useless.

But I also think that the current water units are too polarised towards water. At least in shallow water I think there should be more land units that can challenge them - think of an aquatic type of saurian, for instance. Nagas might also become more powerful in their attacks or resistances, and have less of a defense advantage in water in return. The way the art developers interpret Nagas they are more of a serpent-people anyway, rather than the water spirits in some forms of mythology.

Rhuvean
Its not only in blitz, I was just giving an example. The only real units that can "challenge" a water unit and do effecient damage is either a lot of water units attack one water unit, or a mage attacking a water unit.

And guess what races don't have those?

And now some water units have range, that makes things a lot easier for knaglan doesn't it, for drakes too, and for undead (sarcasm).

~newbie
addicted to this game would be an understatement <(@.@)> .
Shadow
Posts: 1264
Joined: September 9th, 2004, 10:27 am
Location: Following the steps of Goethe
Contact:

Post by Shadow »

The Knalgan Alliance isn´t finished yet they will get a unit with a magic attack.
... all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: February 20th, 2005, 6:02 pm

Post by newbie »

Shadow wrote:The Knalgan Alliance isn´t finished yet they will get a unit with a magic attack.
I'm not only complaining about the Knaglan Alliance, they are just my strong example of how water units are ruining the game. I'm also complaining for other races such as undead and drakes.
Even if you do give Knaglan Alliance a "magic unit" it won't matter because there will still be water units vs water units which is really only based on luck and massing them.
addicted to this game would be an understatement <(@.@)> .
Na'enthos
Posts: 401
Joined: June 13th, 2004, 8:02 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by Na'enthos »

newbie wrote:
Shadow wrote:The Knalgan Alliance isn´t finished yet they will get a unit with a magic attack.
I'm not only complaining about the Knaglan Alliance, they are just my strong example of how water units are ruining the game. I'm also complaining for other races such as undead and drakes.
Even if you do give Knaglan Alliance a "magic unit" it won't matter because there will still be water units vs water units which is really only based on luck and massing them.
So? You'll always have units of equal capability (in a certain terrain) fighting eachother. Perhaps what you are desiring is more water-based units, then (or, also land based units which are not bad in water as well)? Or unbalanced water units?
Post Reply