Selecting attack during enemy's turn

[Ravana]

This is something modification should implement imo.

[Tad_Carlucci]

Yes, a UMC modification could do it. A case could be made, though, that it is an idea which should make it into the mainline, once all the kinks are worked out.

[gnombat]

This is not strictly necessary - it could be a SP-only feature, like choosing which unit to level up to when defending.

Surely a feature like that would be extremely useful in mp?

It would certainly be useful, but, depending on the implementation, it might also make MP games slower and more complicated - if the game asks the defender which attack he wants to use to retaliate, the attacker would have to wait every time for the defender to make a decision. (Presumably this is the reason that, in MP, if a unit levels up while defending, the player does not get to choose which advancement to take.)

[Tad_Carlucci]

Stopping in the midst of an opponent's turn to allow a human defender to select the counterattack would certainly be rejected by the development team. UMC possibly could do that but would have no hope of advancing to becoming mainline feature.

I could see:

Adding a radio button to the weapons list to select the unit's counter attack (when the unit attacks), then enabling a check-box:
Adding a check-box to your unit which enables "Anyways use this as the counter-attack for this unit."
Finally adding a button to save these two selections when you choose not to attack after all.

Storing the selections in the turn-by-turn save,
And synchronizing the selections when in MP.

--

As a further enhancement, I could also see adding some form of indication of the weapon preparation which your opponent (in MP) could see, if they choose to look, that your unit has the Wand of Slowness prepared, and choose their slow-immune Orge to pulpify your unit before pouring everything they have through the break in your line .. muhahaha

[beetlenaut]

in most cases, an Elvish Druid will retaliate with entangle

This is simply not true. You can try it. They only switch to entangle in a few certain circumstances A) when entangle would do more damage because of the enemy's resistances, or B) when it might save them from dying during the current attack--ignoring what might happen on subsequent ones. If I could, I would choose entangle almost every time to reduce damage to my healer, so I am frustrated that the AI usually goes with thorns.

@Tad_Carlucci: I don't really understand the system you are describing here. A radio button to choose your preferred counter attack would be enough. We don't need anything else in the UI, its state just shouldn't change until the user changes it. I would love another for the advancements too.

I would suggest putting the buttons in the right click menu: Change "Rename unit" to "Unit properties". That would include the renaming field like now, but also two sets of radio buttons. (There are other things that could go into "Unit properties" too, like custom overlays for example.) The selections would be stored like names, so no new system of synchronization would be needed.

[Tad_Carlucci]

I think players will be least surprised if the counter-attack override reset at the start of their next turn but if we don't allow them a way to make it permanent, they will surely ask for that.

My idea was to default to using the selected counter-attack for one combat only and then returning to the original behavior of maximizing damage.

I added a checkbox to allow the player to make this a permanent override.

And, if this is on the attack dialog, we'd need a button to commit the options without triggering the attack if all the player wants is to set the counter-attack.

We also will need some way to clear the selection immediately.

Now, sure, we could add a right-click option and a special dialog to handle all this. But I think it would be more intuitive to the players is the option was present in the attack dialog so they can think it all through at once and not have to remember how to find what will probably be a rarely-used feature. Then, again, if we put it right there for them to see, maybe it won't be so rarely used?

[beetlenaut]

It's not intuitive to me that I would have to pretend to attack if I only wanted to select my favorite counter-attack. But, more importantly, a unit may not be in range of an enemy or have any attacks left when you want to set it. In that case, you would have no way to access the attack dialog, so it would be impossible.

Yes, I might expect an "override" to revert after a turn, but not a "unit property". I think it would be clear that it was as permanent as a name change, especially if it was in the same box as the name change. I would use that option every time I got a druid, so it probably wouldn't be that rarely-used. There are also tactical reasons to use a weaker retaliation from time to time. If you put "preferred advancements" in there as well, I would use it every time I got a unit with two upgrade paths.

[Vyncyn]

Instead of having to choose the counterattack for each unit/each turn /each game how about a setting in the game preferences.
Something like Preferences->Advanced (or maybe a new rider with "AI settings")->"Minimise damage input on couterattack" yes/no.
Which would make the Ai always choose the option that would result in the least taken damage (i.e. slow most of the time, high damage only if it would kill the enemy on the first strike). And if it's turned off it would be the "normal" setting (use high damage unless you could prevent your own death).

Since you can change preferenced during the game there shouldn't be a big problem if you want to alternate each turn.
Disadvantage being that you can't set it for each unit indiviually, but it might be the quickest and easiest way.

[Tad_Carlucci]

@beetlenaut Sounds like are on the way to a real design. Yes, I'd forgotten that you might not be able to open the attack dialog.

Yes, pre-selecting advancements would also be good. At present there are times when it selects them for you in MP which ppl don't like and, as you said, it is possible to double-advance.

It does sound like this wants to go on a Unit Preferences tab.

Are there any other player/side/unit gotchas like this? If we're going to make a run at these two, sometime, we probably want to sweep up any others we've not talked about yet.

@Vyncyn I don't know if a game preference would be much good. I see where you're going but it might be too much to ask because the answer may vary, be unclear or unknown. It might be do-able but it seems like a lot of work.

[James_The_Invisible]

There is already Plan Your Advancements Modification on 1.12 add-ons server.

[zookeeper]

in most cases, an Elvish Druid will retaliate with entangle

This is simply not true. You can try it. They only switch to entangle in a few certain circumstances A) when entangle would do more damage because of the enemy's resistances, or B) when it might save them from dying during the current attack--ignoring what might happen on subsequent ones. If I could, I would choose entangle almost every time to reduce damage to my healer, so I am frustrated that the AI usually goes with thorns.

Huh, yes, you're right. That's... very strange.

[NovHak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't being able to choose one default counterattack break the rules ? There should be one default counterattack per attack category, i.e. melee and ranged, considering a ranged attack can't be countered by a melee one and vice versa.

And may I suggest the ability to choose No counterattack as a default counterattack ?

And finally, but maybe I'm going too far, why not being able to choose a Block counterattack (available in melee/ranged, both or not at all, depending on the unit), which would mean a defense bonus or damage reduction, at the expense of not counterattacking ?

I'm not very familiar with the rules yet, so maybe this is inconsistent with the game logic... or not ?

[Pentarctagon]

"No counterattack" doesn't really make much sense on its own - you don't get any benefit from not counterattacking, unless you're dealing with a UMC ability that reflects damage back to the attacker or something. Being able to increase defense/damage reduction by blocking instead would also have fairly huge balance implications.

[NovHak]

The OP mentioned that he wanted the least damage counterattack, so that another unit of his choosing would get the kill and associated XP. Sacrificing a pawn can get you a queen... No counterattack looks like the adequate option in this case.

Concerning a Block counterattack, I know it potentially has huge balance implications and that balance is given much importance here, with reason. Maybe this could be added as a per-map/per-campaign option, disabled by default ?

[Ravana]

Concerning a Block counterattack, I know it potentially has huge balance implications and that balance is given much importance here, with reason. Maybe this could be added as a per-map/per-campaign option, disabled by default ?

That already is per-map option. Creep war allows buying and activating such weapon.