Swap

[zol]

but I am fanatically against the idea if it can negate ZOC.

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone's thinking of going that far.
My reference to ZOC sees it operating normally with or without swapping.

[Phoenyx]

What if it is limited to a unit ability or a move type? Some units can weave around battle, thus negating ZOC. Perhaps others can edge their way infront of an ally, pushing the ally back into their former position?

I couldn't imagine mounted units doing this, but put two skilled fighters in JW's setup and I could see them giving each other enough room to strike at whomever they choose.

[ranek]

Actually, I don't like this idea for 1 reason, and to demonstrate this reason I'll go to the extreme and hope you understand my reasoning:

Let's say I have 2 enemy units in adjacent hexes completely surrounded by my units in the 8 hexes next to them. Under the current rules I've completely immobilized them. They can't do squat except for attack the units I allowed them to attack. Well, with the new "swap" rule in place they could switch sides and perhaps get more favorable matchups than I intended - and there would be no way to stop such a manuever.

Now, I know that's really extreme, but let's say I'm just trying to ZOC a hurt unit from a strong unit by trapping a weaker one to block him. Let's say I trap a thief next to my hurt mage in daytime so an ulfserker can't get to him (most likely on a failed attack attempt). Well, with the new "swap" rule the ulf could just switch places with the thief and go to town on the mage that I had to strategically place units to protect. Well, now you reduce the strategy of risk-management on offense and make counter-attacking stronger.

Something to chew on.

What if we make it so that if they swap it uses all of their movement points and keeps them from attacking? Your opponents could switch but not attack giving you time to reset your formation or whatever you wanted to do...

[zookeeper]

What if we make it so that if they swap it uses all of their movement points and keeps them from attacking? Your opponents could switch but not attack giving you time to reset your formation or whatever you wanted to do...

Then swapping would be pretty much useless and not worth implementing.

[scott]

Here's an ancient discussion: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1215
I still think the AI would be the biggest point to take care of. The UI issue is big too, since there are some players who don't even know about recalling. Strategy-wise, the biggest exploit is for two units that are already in a ZOC being able to switch, right?

[zookeeper]

Strategy-wise, the biggest exploit is for two units that are already in a ZOC being able to switch, right?

Yeah. Although I wouldn't see it as an exploit at all. I also don't see the AI as a huge problem - it doesn't know how to use many of the existing abilities either, and there's probably not much need for the AI to be especially smart when completely surrounded.

[Infinisearch]

Phoenyx in regard to your argument, a quote the FPI thread:

An abstracted sense of scale. Wesnoth uses a simplified scale system where 1 thing (eg. 1 unit, 1 village, 1 type of terrain) takes up 1 hex.

In addition currently in wesnoth all units on the same side currently move through each other, swap is just giving consistent behavior.

(don't know about allied sides... btw if allied side units don't go through each other and is wanted behavior this becomes a good argument for recruitable subcommanders that can be controlled by AI)

Another quote from the FPI:

* Castles should be more difficult to attack
Background: this discussion has taken place on numerous occasions, with references to the difficulty to besiege a castle in the real world, how the game would be more interesting if castles were harder to attack, and so on and so forth. Many variations on the way to accomplish this have been discussed.
Result: the developers feel that the game is not about attacking castles, it's about RPG-party style skirmishes. 'Castles' in the game are a somewhat abstract notion, and one shouldn't dwell heavily on how 'realistic' it is if a castle is only moderately more defensible than other terrain.

Note the part about skirmishes, Wesnoth to me is a bunch of interacting little tactical skirmishes with some accounting thrown in the mix. The simple fact of the matter is swap can't get out of hand because of both critical mass of group size intersected against swap and if you go on the offensive to finish off a particular unit surrounding you, you're going to be breaking formation anyway. Its only useful in a limited offensive sense, is a great addition for a defensive period of time. Namely pausing moving a group of lawful or chaotic units during their weak time by setting up a group on high defense terrain until it is prudent to move.

[irrevenant]

My recollection is that this wasn't an FPI per se; it hadn't been shot down, but had hit the point where it couldn't be discussed further without further inspiration (with regard for how to represent it in the UI).

Personally I'm against it because it violates a long-standing Wesnoth standard; one unit moves at a time. Having to manouevre around your own units is just an element of the strategy (and entirely appropriate when units are squeezing through narrow cave passages).

However:
(a) my disliking it doesn't make it dead in the water; but
(b) if people are sure this is an FPI, I'm happy to add it to the FPI list (probably under the fundamental principle of one unit moves at a time).

[turin]

(b) if people are sure this is an FPI, I'm happy to add it to the FPI list (probably under the fundamental principle of one unit moves at a time).

I'm fairly certain its an FPI - it has come up many times, and always been rejected. Some of them were probably before your time. So, I think we should add it, but if any dev strongly disagrees I'll back down.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I also think this should be listed as an FPI.

[scott]

However:
(a) my disliking it doesn't make it dead in the water; but
(b) if people are sure this is an FPI, I'm happy to add it to the FPI list (probably under the fundamental principle of one unit moves at a time).

It may literally be an FPI but not official in the sense that discussion on it is closed (as far as I know). There are several ideas in idea limbo like this.

[turin]

Well then - let's close the discussion now.

All in favor of making this an FPI, not just an idea that is frequently proposed, say aye:

"Aye".

[zol]

let's close the discussion now.

turin is so easy to please.


Limited version: Permit swapping only if neither unit is within enemy ZOC.

This does not alter the combat/defence situations that most this thread (and the one linked by scott) centres on.

Passing through narrow passages of bad terrain has little to do with planning; After two turns units are in whatever position their mobility dictates as one tries to get them through as quickly as possible. It is just slow and tedious.
Swapping can help get them into formation prior to confrontation.

This also reduces the number of clicks required to reshuffle behind the lines in tight places. There are usually plenty of movepoints given the small area, so one is not gaining in that regard, only in terms of how many steps it takes to complete one's turn (Towers of Hanoi, anyone?).

It still allows moves without gaps for the interior units of a large formation. I don't see that as a bad thing on the rare occasions that such a situation might occur, as it gives the defender some relatively indirect opportunities to manipulate the outcome, without depriving the attacker of control gained at the front.

Beyond this, an attempt to restrict swapping to niche cases so that it doesn't diminish the value of good tactics would seem to require overly complicated rules.

A (not-really-in-place-swapping) UI facility is a separate issue.

So, apart from that or any other significant variations, ... Aye

[Sapient]

Swapping with allied units would be a real problem. Since the allied units move on different turns, there's no telling if the ally would agree to swap or if both units would even be alive when that turn arrives.

[zol]

Swapping with allied units is beyond consideration, I think.
Swapping with own units however, when 'allies' (esp. AI ones) get in the way and wreck your logistics would be rather handy.