Banking=evil?

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

Moderator: Forum Moderators

User avatar
Practice
Posts: 12
Joined: April 20th, 2011, 8:15 pm

Banking=evil?

Post by Practice »

Hey Guys,
I heard the opinion that banking(collecting gold with lower upkeep instead of recruitng units) is degrading, and its not a fair play to do it, and
I ve seen some top tier players games where they seems to complain that their opponent was banking.
What do you think about it? Is it one of Wesnoth strategies, or its just non-fairplay?
Im very curious because its quite controversial stuff :)

Sry for my bad english, btw.
User avatar
Crendgrim
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 1328
Joined: October 15th, 2010, 10:39 am
Location: Germany

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Crendgrim »

Assuming from your mention of "top tier players games", I assume you're speaking about multiplayer.
Well, if you're banking, you don't recruit units. Without units, you don't have the force to prevent an assault.
I don't think banking is something bad for your opponent; it's bad for your. If you manage to hold the balance between banking and recruiting, so you have enough money supply at the right moment, then you are playing good IMO.

Banking is mostly important at the begin of the game when you don't have enough villages to cover your upkeep. Later it's only important when the enemy forces are within reach of your keep and your leader is going to help your units a few turns - there you'll collect enough money to recruit many new units, if your hero isn't blocked from your keep.

So, I think it's one of Wesnoth's strategies to have the right amount of units and income to hold off your enemy best; but I'm not a good player, so you may wait for more valuable input.


Crend
UMC Story Images — Story images for your campaign!
User avatar
Practice
Posts: 12
Joined: April 20th, 2011, 8:15 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Practice »

I think that is one of wesnoth strategies as you said Crend. I see nothing wrong about it, thats why it makes me curious why banking may be seen non-fair?
It would be great if any pro/good player say what he thinks about it.
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Velensk »

I feel that banking is a legitimate technique but one which isn't very fun to play as or against.

It has the concrete disadvantage of forcing you to play with less force on the map. Sure you can instantly catch up (with a bonus even) but it'll take some time for these units to get to where you need them and they can't be used for defense or to pressure until you break down. If your enemy is pressuring you as they should, they should be able to force you to break down and recruit or be forced to give up land.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Duthlet
Code Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: January 9th, 2007, 8:12 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Duthlet »

Banking is a legitimate strategy and banking for a few turns so you don't pay upkeep for units that you don't use because of tod is a clever way of saving money. However, in some matchups (e.g. mirrors) attacking is quite risky and your opponent won't attack you even if you have a few units less. So there is actually no fight and every unit your opponent has more than you gives you a 1 gold advantage per turn. There are two ways for him to stop this:
1) He attacks even though it's risky and you can reinforce quite well with all your money
2) He doesn't attack and to avoid being economicly disadvantaged he has to bank, too.
So banking forces the other player to either play risky or lead to an incredibly boring game in where both players are sitting in their base with only a few units and wait for the other player to attack.
So if someone doesn't want to take high risks he'll be pissed of if you do that, because you enforce a boring game.

PS: There is a third option
3) He pretents credibly (however that's possible) to attack, so you'll reinforce and have to pay as much/more upkeep as/than him.

PPS: In matchups where attacking isn't very risky banking should not be any problem, as the banking player has to stop banking as soon as he is attacked
User avatar
Drakefriend
Posts: 436
Joined: September 27th, 2009, 12:57 pm
Location: Wandering from one world to another
Contact:

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Drakefriend »

Well, if you can use it as a good strategy, I see no reason why you should not use it...that's what strategy games are about.
After far too long an absence, I have returned.
According to the quiz 100% Silver Mage (85% Archmage, 75% Shyde, 67% Flameheart and Ancient Wose,58% Assassin, Troll Warrior and Berserker). And my top score is exactly how I see myself.
Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Insinuator »

Any strategy that is legal and works is a good strategy. That's really all there is to it. People may whine and call it "boring" or "not fun" or "annoying", but those should not have any influence on the strength of the strategem.
Elfor
Posts: 9
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 12:47 am

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Elfor »

If you are northeners you don't need to bank, just recruit goblin spearmans and you will get an economic advantage quickly, while being able to kill mages and other ranged units that may attack your base
User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Sapient »

Elfor wrote:If you are northeners you don't need to bank, just recruit goblin spearmans and you will get an economic advantage quickly, while being able to kill mages and other ranged units that may attack your base
Replay or it didn't happen... :lol2:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."
Huumy
Posts: 292
Joined: October 15th, 2009, 9:52 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Huumy »

I don't know which games you refer to. But I sometimes would jokingly ask if my opponent was banking. Atleast I never complained about banking and it's sometimes the best strategy to get advantage.

Short answer: banking is not evil in my opinion.
"And the girl that you want is directly out in front, And she’s waving her caboose at you, You sneeze achoo, She calls you out and boom!"
The offspring, trolling you since forever.
User avatar
enchilado
Posts: 100
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 8:44 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by enchilado »

Sapient wrote:
Elfor wrote:If you are northeners you don't need to bank, just recruit goblin spearmans and you will get an economic advantage quickly, while being able to kill mages and other ranged units that may attack your base
Replay or it didn't happen... :lol2:
When I tried the Khalifate for the first on a 3P Morituri against two computer opponents, I managed to defeat one side almost solely with falcons. But using their large number of moves to claim most of the map's villages helped, I suppose.

As for banking: of course it's not evil! Of course it's a legitimate tactic! Anything that's part of the game is there to be taken advantage of if you have the skill to do that.
User avatar
13arrage
Posts: 30
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 11:12 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by 13arrage »

enchilado wrote:
Sapient wrote: Replay or it didn't happen... :lol2:
When I tried the Khalifate for the first on a 3P Morituri against two computer opponents, I managed to defeat one side almost solely with falcons. But using their large number of moves to claim most of the map's villages helped, I suppose.

As for banking: of course it's not evil! Of course it's a legitimate tactic! Anything that's part of the game is there to be taken advantage of if you have the skill to do that.


Yeah, but a drunken second grader could beat two AI opponents on equal gold footing, that's not proper testing.


The problem with goblinspam is that pretty much every faction has a great counter that's practically immune to them. You got your woses, your heavy infantry, your trolls. And while they're pretty high damage they're low HP so they have a habit of dying unsupported.

Banking isn't an 'evil' tactic. In fact in 1v1 it's usually a poor one, unless your opponent refuses to push you, in which case he's probably banking too. In three-or-four player FFAs it can work, but that's a given.
Huumy
Posts: 292
Joined: October 15th, 2009, 9:52 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by Huumy »

13arrage wrote:Banking isn't an 'evil' tactic. In fact in 1v1 it's usually a poor one, unless your opponent refuses to push you, in which case he's probably banking too.
I agree that banking is usually a poor tactic. Here are some scenarios when I see it's being good one:
1. You have just done good attack and this resulted you having advantage in army. The time of the day is changing and you are retreating next turn. At this point (depending on map) you can stop recruiting for 1 or 2 turns and still get the same amount or more troops for the next favorable time of the day ready to attack. If your opponent decides to attack before that you can recruit the units just before the battle(s) start.
2. Your opponent is ahead in army but don't want to attack. (This is bad playing from your opponent but whatever a win is a win.)
3. After reaching the support cap (when you have same amount of villages and upkeep from units. This means recruiting more level 1 or higher units will result loss in income) in the early game. If there's no good chance for you to attack and you don't need the extra unit(s) this turn you can bank until you need the units for defending or attacking.

This also depends how many turns of not recruiting is counted as banking I think it as 1 turn or more.

This is more about banking in general but I hope it's not too much off-topic.
"And the girl that you want is directly out in front, And she’s waving her caboose at you, You sneeze achoo, She calls you out and boom!"
The offspring, trolling you since forever.
User avatar
enchilado
Posts: 100
Joined: March 25th, 2011, 8:44 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by enchilado »

13arrage wrote:Yeah, but a drunken second grader could beat two AI opponents on equal gold footing, that's not proper testing.
I didn't intend it to be. I was just seeing what the Khalifate were like. My point was, if I can beat the AI with little more than falcons, Elfor can probably beat them with little more than goblin spearmen. He never said he was playing against a human opponent.
Last edited by enchilado on June 27th, 2011, 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pauxlo
Posts: 1047
Joined: September 19th, 2006, 8:54 pm

Re: Banking=evil?

Post by pauxlo »

enchilado wrote:My point was, if I can beat the AI with little more than falcons, Elfor can probably beat them with little more than goblin spearmen. He never said he was playing against a human opponent.
If you play against the AI, there is no point of talking about "banking=evil?" at all. The AI will not complain. (It is only artificial intelligence, not artificial sentience, yet.)
Post Reply