logic for multiple reactionary attacks???

[Velensk]

Chess is an entirely different game. About the only relevance I get out of that was that if you altered the way retaliation works in Wesnoth then rebalanced it, you would end up with a very different game which is true but rather obvious.

[Rya]

I said that to proof that removing retaliation doesn't make a game unbalanced by default which seems to be the thinking here.

[Skrim]

No, THIS game needs reactionary attacks to be balanced.

A comparison of Wesnoth to Chess is a non-argument. It's like saying Warcraft 2 has gnomes and therefore Wesnoth should have gnomes too. With regards as to whether Wesnoth needs reactionary attacks or not, it proves nothing.

[Atz]

I said that to proof that removing retaliation doesn't make a game unbalanced by default which seems to be the thinking here.

No, the thinking here is that Wesnoth is designed to be balanced with retaliation as it currently exists. Changing that would require drastic changes to just about everything and months, probably even years of testing to reach the current level of balance. It would also significantly change gameplay, to the point where it wouldn't really be the same game.

A comparison of Wesnoth to Chess is a non-argument. It's like saying Warcraft 2 has gnomes and therefore Wesnoth should have gnomes too. With regards as to whether Wesnoth needs reactionary attacks or not, it proves nothing.

That's a poor example. Gnomes are an element of the setting, not a gameplay rule. We could rename dwarves "cave gnomes" if we wanted and it wouldn't really change anything, except that it would sound ridiculous.

It would be more like saying that if a unit avoids taking damage for a turn, they should return to full health, because that's how it works in Call of Duty. Or they should all charge across the map in real-time instead of taking turns, like Age of Empires. Or that you should have to manage the happiness level, food production and tax levels of your villages, because that's how Civilization does it.

[Zachron]

You can't necessarily apply logic like that to Wesnoth. It's honestly not even clear what the scale is. There're two strange saying regarding this:

Hexes are possibly miles across
Units are possibly entire battalions

(Remember that, artwork wise, entire villages are represented by single houses.)

Not only that, but Turns are also represented as HOURS. All attacks are thus considered asynchronous.

[Insinuator]

What? Turns are played side by side, thus they are synchronized. Even if each turn = 4 hours, P1 and P2 both get to play the same section of time.

[Zachron]

But over the span of 4 hours lots of attacks can take place. If we are considering things on the unit scale, all engagements might be mere minutes or mere seconds out of the block. On the formation scale, it could be envisioned as different fronts divided against several foes. It is generally the front few rows that does all the fighting in formations(even archer formations), so it is not that implausible that the number of retaliatory attacks is the same regardless of how many fronts a unit is engaged on. IN this case, you could look at time being simultaneous rather than asynchronous. In unit scale, you consider them as asynchronous engagements still... Afterall, only the most foolhardy warriors assume a quick end can be achieved in only one engagement, and only the most suicidal ensure said confrontation. (Berserkers...)

[Deukalion]

I think the potential to get bogged down in semantics and false analogies is very high here, and I think we should keep it in mind.

The analogies that can be made for either individual units or regiments are plausible, but I think we should keep in mind that they are useful only as a device to rationalize the basic outline of this game, which is that people are fighting battles. In addition, no matter how hard we try, we are not going to find a perfectly satisfactory breakdown or schedule for unit attacks. This is simply because the game functions in turns, while life does not. The turns are merely a mechanic to facilitate a flow that prevents everything from happening at once.

I think that approaching the game from a mechanical perspective is better, as many people have already mentioned. The retalliation is simply a mechanic to represent the fact that both combatants are active in the fight within the aforementioned context of turns.

I also share the opinion that the mechancis of the game function very well, and that to change them would require a ton of reballancing. I think it ain't broke, so lets not fix it. But the discussions are stimulating, at the very least.

[Insinuator]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Deukalion. Except for the very last sentence. I see no reason to analogize, rationalize, or otherwise discuss how Wesnoth units "really" work. It is pointless and frustrating since, even if there was a consensus, as long as the mechanics back it, you can do whatever you want with the game. Hence the growth of such add-ons as Space Battles and RPGs. You can NOT reconcile those with more "standard" campaigns and scenarios by even the most outlandish of theories. So why waste time arguing over it?

[Deukalion]

I was being diplomatic.