Multiplayer observation

[MRhe]

You just contradicted yourself here. "Who gets the first attack matters most with opposite attacks (ranged vs. melee)...whoever has the iniative has the advantage, it doesn't matter at all wether they have ranged units or melee units..." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The initiative is important, but it depends on the situation. If I am able to shoot at you and damage you before you can even swing at me then I'm in a superior tactical situation.

No, I didn't contradict myself. You just completely misunderstood me...

Well, please clarify your point. As you stated it, you make two opposing points.

[MRhe]

Yeah but in that case the 4-2, 8-2 units do more total damage.

What I've been saying is that mixed units have no advantage if they still do the same total damage. i.e. A 5-2, 5-2 unit is no stronger than a unit which does one 10-2 attack.

They don't have an advantage in pure power, but they still have a tactical advantage from their ranged vs. nonranged ability. This advantage won't be as evident in a 1v1 battle between a 10-2M and a 5-2M/5-2R unit, because the power of the 10-2 unit will usually surpass that of the other unit. It is only when used in groups/conjuntion with other units that its value becomes obvious.

[telly]

Alright heres quite a dramatic example to illustrate the advantages of units which do all their damage in one 'phase' (for want of more appropriate terminology) as opposed to units which spread their damage over two.

All units have 40 hp, also for simplicity's sake I'll say they all have skirmish as really zoc isn't relevant to this discussion (I don't think) as
both sides can make equal use of it. And I'm ignoring villages and terrain and whatever else for the same reason.

Two players, M and X and they each have three units named m1, m2, m3 and x1, x2, x3 respectively.

M's units only have a 10-2 attack melee
X's have both a 5-2 melee and 5-2 ranged attacks
all attacks hit (they're drakes fighting in a river or something)

m1 m2 m3

x1 x2 x3

Match 1
M moves first

M side turn 1
m1 moves and melee attacks x1, m1 = 30hp, x1 = 20hp
m2 moves and melee attacks x1, m2 = 35hp, x1 = dead
m3 moves and melee attacks x2, m3 = 30hp, x2 = 20hp

X side turn 1
x2 moves and ranged attacks m3, x2 = 20hp, m1 = 20hp
x3 moves and ranged attacks m3, x3 = 40hp, m1 = 10hp

M side turn 2
m1 moves and melee attacks x2, m1 = 5hp, x2 = dead
m2 moves and melee attacks x3, m2 = 25hp, x3 = 20hp
m3 moves and melee attacks x3, m3 = 25hp, x3 = dead

so M wins without losing a single unit


Match 2
Now reversed, with X having the first turn

X side turn 1
x1 moves and ranged attacks m1, x1 = 40hp, m1 = 30hp
x2 moves and ranged attacks m1, x2 = 40hp, m1 = 20hp
x3 moves and ranged attacks m1, x3 = 40hp, m1 = 10hp

M side turn 1
m2 moves and melee attacks x1, m2 = 30hp, x1 = 20hp
m1 moves and melee attacks x1, m1 = 5hp, x1 = dead
m3 moves and melee attacks x2, m3 = 30hp, x2 = 20hp

X side turn 2
x3 moves and ranged attacks m1, x3 = 40hp, m1 = dead
x2 moves and ranged attacks m2, x2 = 20hp, m2 = 20hp

M side turn 2
m2 moves and melee attacks x2, m2 = 15hp, x2 is dead
m3 moves and melee attacks x3, m3 = 20hp, x3 = 20hp

X side turn 3
x3 moves and ranged attacks m2, x3 = 20hp, m2 = 5hp

M Side turn 3
m3 moves and melee attacks x3, m3 = 15hp, x3 = dead

So M is left with 2 units m2 and m3 with 5 and 15 hitpoints left respectively. Player X could also disperse theirs attacks and do more damage so that all the ms were left alive but at 5hp. Normally though killing even a single unit outright would be a more desirable outcome.

[MRhe]

Well, obviously the much more powerful melee unit has a big advantage. I'm not debating that it is advantageous to have your power concentrated instead of spread out. This is a separate argument from the one I was making.

Mixed units have a tactical advantage on the battlefield - this is independent of the question of whether it's better to have damage concentrated or not. This tactical advantage doesn't trump a pure power advantage by any means. It is an independent concern.

The tactical advantage certainly becomes outweighed by an opponent's massive power advantage .

[Darth Fool]

Alright heres quite a dramatic example to illustrate the advantages of units which do all their damage in one 'phase' (for want of more appropriate terminology) as opposed to units which spread their damage over two.

All units have 40 hp, also for simplicity's sake I'll say they all have skirmish as really zoc isn't relevant to this discussion (I don't think) as
both sides can make equal use of it. And I'm ignoring villages and terrain and whatever else for the same reason.

Two players, M and X and they each have three units named m1, m2, m3 and x1, x2, x3 respectively.

M's units only have a 10-2 attack melee
X's have both a 5-2 melee and 5-2 ranged attacks
all attacks hit (they're drakes fighting in a river or something)

<snip>...

Normally though killing even a single unit outright would be a more desirable outcome.

This is all well and good, but you have neglected other cases, such as player M has
units that are a combination of heavy melee/no-ranged and heavy ranged/no-melee. In such a scenario, having mixed fighters would be more of an advantage for X, especially when you consider that in a well formed defensive line, typically no more than two units can attack any one unit, except at the ends.

[telly]

This is all well and good, but you have neglected other cases, such as player M has
units that are a combination of heavy melee/no-ranged and heavy ranged/no-melee.

I've neglected those other cases because it would make no difference.
For instance if M has one melee (m1) and two ranged units (r1, r2):


M moves first

M side turn 1
m1 moves and melee attacks x1, m1 = 30hp, x1 = 20hp
r1 moves and ranged attacks x1, r1 = 35hp, x1 = dead
r2 moves and ranged attacks x2, r2 = 30hp, x2 = 20hp

X side turn 1
x2 moves and ranged attacks m1, x2 = 20hp, m1 = 20hp
x3 moves and ranged attacks m1, x3 = 40hp, m1 = 10hp

M side turn 2
m1 moves and melee attacks x2, m1 = 5hp, x2 = dead
r1 moves and ranged attacks x3, r1 = 25hp, x3 = 20hp
r2 moves and ranged attacks x3, r2 = 25hp, x3 = dead

the outcome is identical.

In such a scenario, having mixed fighters would be more of an advantage for X, especially when you consider that in a well formed defensive line, typically no more than two units can attack any one unit, except at the ends.

Mixed fighters are at even more of a disadvantage in this scenario. Fighting over a battleline where players are continually rotating units out to villages to heal and at most you only have 2 hexes available to attack any one unit from, often the only way to break through is to kill a unit outright in a single turn which requires units with a single massively powerful attack. A unit with two attacks in either phase is no good as you won't do enough damage to kill an enemy before your opponents turn and they can replace it.

[telly]

Well, obviously the much more powerful melee unit has a big advantage. I'm not debating that it is advantageous to have your power concentrated instead of spread out.

It very much sounded like you were?

This is a separate argument from the one I was making.

What argument were you were making?

Mixed units have a tactical advantage on the battlefield - this is independent of the question of whether it's better to have damage concentrated or not. This tactical advantage doesn't trump a pure power advantage by any means. It is an independent concern.

What tactical advantage? Why is it independant?

The tactical advantage certainly becomes outweighed by an opponent's massive power advantage .

If its outweighed by an opponent's power advantage, what use is it?

[Darth Fool]

Mixed fighters are at even more of a disadvantage in this scenario. Fighting over a battleline where players are continually rotating units out to villages to heal and at most you only have 2 hexes available to attack any one unit from, often the only way to break through is to kill a unit outright in a single turn which requires units with a single massively powerful attack. A unit with two attacks in either phase is no good as you won't do enough damage to kill an enemy before your opponents turn and they can replace it.

This is only true on offense. If you are on defense, X wants to have a mixed fighter, otherwise M will choose to attack x' ranged units with melee units, and his melee units with ranged units, with M suffering no damage whatsoever. Now there are plenty of situations where being on "defense" is irrelevent and you are better off being in full offense mode all the time, but when you factor in terrain considerations, the presence of a healer/village, or are trying to delay until reinforcements can arrive, the balance changes.

[MRhe]

It very much sounded like you were?

Well then you completely misunderstood everything I've been talking about.

What argument were you were making?

I was arguing against your original claim that there is no difference between melee and ranged attacks. I was making the counterclaim that there is a difference, and that a mixed melee/ranged unit has a tactical advantage over a pure melee and/or pure ranged unit.

What tactical advantage? Why is it independant?

Reread all my posts in this thread. It is advantageous because the unit can damage the enemy without retaliation. This is a separate issue from whether it is best to have a 10-2 unit or a 5-4 unit.

If its outweighed by an opponent's power advantage, what use is it?

I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental ideas going on here. If you have a unit that is significantly stronger than another, then it will win in a 1v1 fight assuming average dice rolls. The "tactical advantage" I speak of has little relevance in this situation because the stronger unit can just pummel/shell the weaker unit without regard for its own welfare because it does more damage or has more HP or some combination thereof.

The tactical advantage of the mixed unit becomes evident in an actual battlefield situation. Consider that you can have your Elvish fighter front line shoot Orcish grunts, sustain and deal damage during the Orcs' attack, and then retreat behind a second line of Elves, which can then move forward and once again shoot the grunts without reliation. Consider that, for instance, 4 Elvish fighters can dole out 3-36 points of "free" damage to the opponent, "free" in the sense that the Elves do not receive retaliation when they are using their ranged attack. Of course 4 Orcs can do something like 10-80 damage on their attack phase (depending on time of day, etc.) but they risk another 5-80 pts. of retaliatory damage from the Elves! The Elves have the potential to do about an Orc's HP worth more damage, simply by virtue of their ranged attack.

[telly]

Mixed fighters are at even more of a disadvantage in this scenario. Fighting over a battleline where players are continually rotating units out to villages to heal and at most you only have 2 hexes available to attack any one unit from, often the only way to break through is to kill a unit outright in a single turn which requires units with a single massively powerful attack. A unit with two attacks in either phase is no good as you won't do enough damage to kill an enemy before your opponents turn and they can replace it.

This is only true on offense. If you are on defense, X wants to have a mixed fighter, otherwise M will choose to attack x' ranged units with melee units, and his melee units with ranged units, with M suffering no damage whatsoever. Now there are plenty of situations where being on "defense" is irrelevent and you are better off being in full offense mode all the time, but when you factor in terrain considerations, the presence of a healer/village, or are trying to delay until reinforcements can arrive, the balance changes.

No. What you want on defense more than anything else is a tank with lots of hp so no matter how its attacked, even by two or three units simultaneously, it'll probably survive. If you have a mixed unit the danger is its attacks won't do enough damage to deter a concentrated attack from either ranged or melee (or both). For instance a loyalist bowman does ok melee damage but its nothing that would ever stop a troll attacking.

[telly]

It very much sounded like you were?

Well then you completely misunderstood everything I've been talking about.

What argument were you were making?

I was arguing against your original claim that there is no difference between melee and ranged attacks. I was making the counterclaim that there is a difference, and that a mixed melee/ranged unit has a tactical advantage over a pure melee and/or pure ranged unit.

What tactical advantage? Why is it independant?

Reread all my posts in this thread. It is advantageous because the unit can damage the enemy without retaliation. This is a separate issue from whether it is best to have a 10-2 unit or a 5-4 unit.

If its outweighed by an opponent's power advantage, what use is it?

I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental ideas going on here. If you have a unit that is significantly stronger than another, then it will win in a 1v1 fight assuming average dice rolls. The "tactical advantage" I speak of has little relevance in this situation because the stronger unit can just pummel/shell the weaker unit without regard for its own welfare because it does more damage or has more HP or some combination thereof.

The tactical advantage of the mixed unit becomes evident in an actual battlefield situation. Consider that you can have your Elvish fighter front line shoot Orcish grunts, sustain and deal damage during the Orcs' attack, and then retreat behind a second line of Elves, which can then move forward and once again shoot the grunts without reliation. Consider that, for instance, 4 Elvish fighters can dole out 3-36 points of "free" damage to the opponent, "free" in the sense that the Elves do not receive retaliation when they are using their ranged attack. Of course 4 Orcs can do something like 10-80 damage on their attack phase (depending on time of day, etc.) but they risk another 5-80 pts. of retaliatory damage from the Elves! The Elves have the potential to do about an Orc's HP worth more damage, simply by virtue of their ranged attack.

no1.. Your example is terrible flawed because, like I already pointed out 30 comments or so ago, individually elf fighters are better than grunts, they do more damage, the cost more gold, they have better defense etc etc. Match elves up to dwarvish fighters and you get a much different story.

no2.. It is not a seperate issue. You cannot do free damage. All combat in wesnoth is close combat. To attack an enemy unit you have to move your's adjacent to it. That puts you at risk of a counter attack, you cannot avoid it.

[elscouta]

no2.. It is not a seperate issue. You cannot do free damage. All combat in wesnoth is close combat. To attack an enemy unit you have to move your's adjacent to it. That puts you at risk of a counter attack, you cannot avoid it.

You can.
You can kill a damaged and alone units with ranged damage.
If the target unit is not alone but you have fighters near, you can move your fighter in the liberated spot and so protect your archers. This works quite well even if this stay occasional

[telly]

You can.
You can kill a damaged and alone units with ranged damage.
If the target unit is not alone but you have fighters near, you can move your fighter in the liberated spot and so protect your archers. This works quite well even if this stay occasional

Thats if you kill them.

[MRhe]

no1.. Your example is terrible flawed because, like I already pointed out 30 comments or so ago, individually elf fighters are better than grunts, they do more damage, the cost more gold, they have better defense etc etc. Match elves up to dwarvish fighters and you get a much different story.

Fine, use dwarves instead of grunts. They'll do between 8-96 pts. of damage. Still less than the elves' potential.

Furthermore, as others besides me have pointed out, other considerations come into play aside from a pure damage-dealing perspective anyway.

no2.. It is not a seperate issue. You cannot do free damage. All combat in wesnoth is close combat. To attack an enemy unit you have to move your's adjacent to it. That puts you at risk of a counter attack, you cannot avoid it.

What? Are you just ignoring the facts of the battle system? You're either being intentionally obtuse now or you are not understanding me for some reason. How can I make this any clearer?

Answer this - If I have an archer shoot a dwarvish fighter, what are the possibilities in that round of combat? Note that damage to the archer is not possible.

Whatever happens in subsequent battle rounds is irrelevant.

[telly]

Furthermore, as others besides me have pointed out, other considerations come into play aside from a pure damage-dealing perspective anyway.

Which are?

What? Are you just ignoring the facts of the battle system? You're either being intentionally obtuse now or you are not understanding me for some reason. How can I make this any clearer?

Answer this - If I have an archer shoot a dwarvish fighter, what are the possibilities in that round of combat? Note that damage to the archer is not possible.

Whatever happens in subsequent battle rounds is irrelevant.

It can do 0, 2, 4 or 6 point of damage that round. The round after the dwarvish fighter can hit back for up to 24hp, whereas the elf can do only 16hp. Why is that irrelevant?