New Idea: Combined defence

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Grey_Wolf_c
Posts: 24
Joined: February 12th, 2006, 5:49 pm

New Idea: Combined defence

Post by Grey_Wolf_c »

The usual disclaimers apply: sorry if this has been proposed before, I did check the common ideas, the discarded suggestions and did a search, but found nothing. If this *has* been proposed before, feel free to tell me so.

The basis of my new idea, I suppose, is that I feel that leadership needs a kind of "balancing" element. Which is to mean, that just like leadership gives an upgrade in the attack of nearby troops, something should upgrade the defence of close units.

This came by because I was thinking of the roman armies and how it could be applied to Wesnoth. Now, the roman armies are famous for their siege engines (no trouble there, just a ridiculously overpowered range shooter with little life and possibly no melee attack), but first and foremost for their infantry, with their overlapping shields and their excellent coordination.

Now, the possibility of creating a unit that has steadfast is, obviously, the most straightforward answer, but it doesn't reflect as well as I would like the concept of those shields - they were perfectly good in attack as well as defend, for one thing. The key is that the budies to your sides helped defend you and you defended them - combined defence.

My idea for implementation is somewhat similar to leadership:
When a unit with "combined defence" is adjacent to an ally and to an enemy, it grants the ally a +10% to the defence rating (to a maximum of 60 or maybe 70%).

The key points:
- Adjacent to both units (unlike leadership) reduces the bonus to a maximum of +20%, so stacking is not a problem. It makes sense, because if he's not close to the action, it is not easy for him to participate.

- It is most useful when several units with it are together, so they each give the rest the bonus.

- It affects the chance to hit, rather than damage modifiers, for two reasons. First, to make it different from steadfast. Second, to represent those tall shields which effectively stop all damage - but if they get through the defence, you're in for a whole lot of pain.

I am undecided on how it would interact with abilities that set the hit rate (magical attacks and sharpshooter). My first approach is that those abilities would be unnafected. Magic ignores armor, and a sharpshooter still can find the whole in the wall of shields, even when no-one else can.

Finally, I want to touch on the fact that most games tend to frown on defensive abilities, since they bog down the games (sieges might be historically common, but boring). Combined defence wouldn't be strong enough to make defensive play a winner, but would represent the real strength of keeping well trained troops in formation.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Alks
Posts: 314
Joined: December 4th, 2005, 11:53 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Alks »

It would have sense, although it would seriously disturb the balance of the game, if overused. Imagine wall of fencers in forest and Defence Leadership Unit behind them.

Grey_Wolf_c
Posts: 24
Joined: February 12th, 2006, 5:49 pm

Post by Grey_Wolf_c »

"Imagine wall of fencers in forest and Defence Leadership Unit behind them."

But that would be useless - the "defence leader" wouldn't be in contact with the enemy unit, so the fencers wouldn't get the bonus. The only way to do that would be to have a fencer, a "shield guy", a fencer, a "shield guy" etc.

That would give the fencers the bonus, but the shield guys wouldn't have it.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough: it is like leadership in that the unit gives the bonus to those around it, but not himself. But it is not like leadership in the sense it must touch both friend and foe to act.

In an unrelated point, I just read in one of the other topics that the developers don't like to mess with percentages. Note that there would be a top hit chance of 70%. This would be most useful on water, obviously, were you can reduce your chances of getting hit by half if done properly, but otherwise it wouldn't be that unbalancing.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Alks
Posts: 314
Joined: December 4th, 2005, 11:53 pm
Location: Poland

Post by Alks »

Yes, it does.

The concept is now both much more appliable in the terms of balancing and much more complex now(both in terms of logic and in terms of coding). I don't think it would be something really useful and needed.

User avatar
Eleazar
Retired Terrain Art Director
Posts: 2481
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
Location: US Midwest
Contact:

Post by Eleazar »

it's not a new idea, but i don't think it's on the FPI list yet either.

I don't see the connection betwee Romans locking shields to a "defense leadership" unit.

IMHO a simpler and better version of this ability is the idea that "defensive" units get a bonus whenever they are adjacent to units of the same kind. (or adjacent to at least 2 similar units) This also seems to more closely imitate the effect of locking shields.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity

User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

I really hope you are talking about hoplites. Romans did NOT placed their shield overlapped.

And you can find something pretty much like that searching for a grouping ability. Many porposed ways to do it and for it to work too.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004

scott
Posts: 5242
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by scott »

The only reason it's not on the FPI list is that it hasn't be categorically rejected. However, in the literal sense this is a frequently proposed idea.

I don't know how it would play out. Leadership isn't that common of an ability. Does it need much balancing out? Your usage implies that it will be given to, say, a L2 fighter so it would be about as common as leadership. You could just as easily give the defense-boosting ability to a mage and keep it rare. In that sense I think it could be fun, and it's different than letting all of the L0 goblins form a line to get the defense boost. In that case you really would go bonus-happy in a bad way.

The languishing of this idea (as opposed to rejection) means that more than anything you just need to find someone to code it and submit a patch.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.

User avatar
Eleazar
Retired Terrain Art Director
Posts: 2481
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
Location: US Midwest
Contact:

Post by Eleazar »

Cuyo Quiz wrote:I really hope you are talking about hoplites. Romans did NOT placed their shield overlapped.
i may not be Techuma Khan, but i know a few things about military history.
This and this is what i mean.

Balancing isn't my forté, but i think it could be an interesting ability, but not one to be given to many/most units.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity

Xan
Inactive Developer
Posts: 258
Joined: August 28th, 2005, 3:05 pm
Contact:

Post by Xan »

scott wrote:The languishing of this idea (as opposed to rejection) means that more than anything you just need to find someone to code it and submit a patch.
Uh, no, this will be possible sometime after 1.1.2.
"It is time people learned about their failures and my successes."

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Grey_Wolf_c wrote:Note that there would be a top hit chance of 70%. This would be most useful on water, obviously, were you can reduce your chances of getting hit by half if done properly,
Actually, since only two units can confer the ability at once due to spatial issues, the 'best' place to use the ability would be on a hill or forest (something with 50% defense) thereby dividing damage taken by 5/3. In water, with 20% defense, the damage is divided by 4/3.

I like the idea though. However, that might be because I created a similar idea long ago. :| OTOH, this ability is much more reasonable than that one was. :)
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

User avatar
drachefly
Posts: 308
Joined: March 23rd, 2005, 6:01 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by drachefly »

When the OP mentioned balance, I don't think game balance was meant, but more of symmetry of game mechanics.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step. It is always the same step, but you have to take it. -- You-know-who
The Kingdom Of Loathing Era

User avatar
Ken_Oh
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2176
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Post by Ken_Oh »

What I have to say about this is what I say about every idea that is suggested that gives bonuses for being next to regular units (or a select few units): Being next to other allied units is already an essential strategy in Wesnoth.

Covering your flanks so you don't get hit on more than a couple sides is naturally a good strategy. I'm unsure if any more reason to cover your flanks is needed. Leadership is a little different because you usually use leaders from the back or around the back and to the side, but giving artificial bonuses to those who clump armies together seems redundant to me.

As I've said before, if anything, an ability that encourages being farther away from allied units sounds more in order than one that encourages more clumping.

That said, I think the idea that Grey Wolf has of adding 10 % to-be-hit defence wouldn't make it overpowered.

romnajin
Posts: 1067
Joined: February 26th, 2005, 7:26 pm
Contact:

Post by romnajin »

Claustrophobic-when packed in tight areas by too many allies or enemies, has reduced attack/defense by 10%
Sorry for the meaningless post

User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Xan wrote:
scott wrote:The languishing of this idea (as opposed to rejection) means that more than anything you just need to find someone to code it and submit a patch.
Uh, no, this will be possible sometime after 1.1.2.
WoOt. I heartily applaud Xan for all of the changes he is making that make the Imperial Era a reality. 8)

(P.S.: I WILL be using the new features Xan is adding to the specials extensively. Eventually, it will just be a matter of balancing, not a matter of getting it coded. We should discuss balancing of this and other new specials then - but it is all just, as smokem said, theorynoth until then.)
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

romnajin wrote:Claustrophobic-when packed in tight areas by too many allies or enemies, has reduced attack/defense by 10%
Ooh! I like this idea! It's a little unspecific though...

This unit does 1 less damage for each unit next to it.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

Post Reply